Jo Leinen (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to ask you to make contact with the Commission and Council in order to push for the refusal of the accreditation of the designated US Ambassador, Ted Malloch. Mr Malloch has shown extreme hostility towards the European Union and the core idea of European integration. I think he should be persona non grata in Brussels.

Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to share the concern of many of us at the resumption of massive heavy shelling in eastern Ukraine, where nine people have been killed, 26 wounded, thousands of civilians have been displaced, and hundreds of thousands of civilians are without basic supplies. I don’t know if it is a coincidence that this weekend, on Saturday, President Putin and President Trump had a phone call, but the EU should react. I am happy that the High Representative is here with us to call for a ceasefire, for humanitarian aid and to restore the political process.

Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR). – Mr President, I would like to raise the issue already mentioned by Ms Corazza Bildt. Unfortunately, the situation in eastern Ukraine and the humanitarian crisis in Avdiyivka, the destruction of critical infrastructure and the deaths of civilians require our debate here in the plenary. Therefore, I propose to add this point to the agenda. Please vote on this.

Peter Lundgren (EFDD). – Mr President, today a new item will be added to the agenda: managing the migration in the Mediterranean. With regard to this proposal, the EFDD Group would highlight that our member, Beatrix von Storch, already tabled a major interpellation on managing the migration in the Mediterranean. This issue is already in the pipeline for parliamentary follow-up with the High Representative. Mr President, could you please confirm that the major interpellation tabled by the EFDD Group shall not be dismissed on the grounds that a debate on a similar issue is taking place today?

Nigel Farage (EFDD). – Mr President, can I respond to the somewhat bizarre Communist intervention from the German Member Jo Leinen who wants us to ban and bar … (Loud objections, catcalls and whistles from the floor) … Oh, isn’t this just the European House of democracy! So you shout me down before I’ve even said anything? Well, Mr President, these people’s minds aren’t very open. Can I just point out that it would be somewhat bizarre to bar and ban Ted Roosevelt Malloch from any engagement with the European Union, given that he hasn’t even been appointed yet.

Ana Gomes (S&D). – Mr President, besides supporting my colleague, Jo Leinen, in his request that the person designated as Ambassador to the EU will not be accepted, I want to hear you, Mr President – as President of this Parliament and on behalf of this Parliament – to clearly condemn the measures that President Trump has announced in the US banning Muslims from certain countries as illegal, against international law and our principles as allies, racist, xenophobic, discriminatory and inviting terror reactions.

Janice Atkinson (ENF). – Mr President, can I just say that we have not seen the like of this outpouring of liberal left grief. Were you outpouring, were you marching on the streets when President Obama proposed this ban on these 11 countries? No. It is a 90-day moratorium. Were you marching on the streets? You were not.

Maria João Rodrigues, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, the S&D position is in favour of having a plenary discussion about democracy and justice in Romania. and as this is being proposed in particular by the ALDE Group. We also think that we need to clarify facts by complementing this debate in plenary with a proper discussion in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. We feel that we should also send a fact—finding mission to Romania to check what is really happening.

We consider that it is particularly important to clarify these points: not only the purpose of the legislative package adopted yesterday, but also the way the prison system works in Romania, as well as the way the judicial system works. So this is our proposal: a debate in plenary, a debate in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and a fact-finding mission to Romania.

Maria João Rodrigues, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I agree with the ALDE proposal concerning the debate in plenary on the theme of democracy and justice in Romania. We agree with this proposal, and add to it a proper discussion in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs afterwards, as well as a fact—finding mission to Romania.

Maria João Rodrigues, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, we agree with the debate in plenary but we want to add two other initiatives: a debate in the LIBE Committee and a fact—finding mission to the country itself. This is our proposal.

Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I think Ms Fotyga had an amendment to our agenda and order of business. She asked, taking up Ms Corazza Bildt’s proposal, to put the Ukrainian crisis and the escalation in Avdiyivka on our agenda in this mini-session. According to our working methods, if there is such a request, we should vote on it.

I would also like to underline one element. I fully agree with what my friends, Ms Fotyga and Ms Corazza Bildt, raised. In the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, the situation in Ukraine will be on the agenda with the Foreign Ministers, and that will also give us an opportunity to restate our full support for the country and for the full implementation of the Minsk Agreement.

Turning to the issue on our agenda today, I would start by saying that Europe and the United States of America are tied by an old and deep friendship. Personally I have always looked – and I still look – at the United States with great respect and admiration, as a land where everyone can succeed whatever their social, ethnic or cultural background. It is a land of opportunities, a land of hope and dreams, a country that has always been great precisely because it has always been open and has always been a champion of freedoms.

As a good friend of the United States, I believe Europe has a duty to be clear – respectful and clear – whenever disagreement arises, especially when it relates to our fundamental values. We certainly disagree with the executive order issued by the President of the United States on 27 January as, it seems, do many in the US too. As you know, the executive order introduces a temporary suspension, for a period of 90 days, of the entry into the USA of foreign nationals from seven countries: Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. A temporary suspension is also foreseen, for a period of 120 days, of the US refugee admissions programme, in principle so that no new refugee application can be accepted until the US Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security, reviews the current application process.

There have been questions about which citizens are affected by the travel ban. I would like to tackle this issue immediately and then focus on what to me is even more important. The US Department of State clarified yesterday that European Union citizens will not be affected by the ban, even if they hold dual citizenship in one of the seven countries listed in the executive order. We welcome this clarification, but let me be absolutely clear that this does not change our overall assessment of the executive order.

(Applause)

I have already made clear in recent days where the European Union stands on this. No—one – no—one – can be deprived of his or her own rights because of their place of birth, their religion or their ethnicity. This is written in our constitutions, both in Europe and in America. This is who we are, this is our identity, and this is something we cannot forget. Our European history has taught us to celebrate when a wall is torn down and a bridge is built. We learned from our own great, but also tragic, history that every human being is, first and foremost, a person with fundamental rights that cannot be put into question.

Let me add, from a personal point of view, that I found it really sad to learn that this executive order was issued on 27 January, Holocaust Remembrance Day, that is first and foremost a day to commemorate millions of Jews killed by Nazis, but also to reject any discrimination and to reflect on our duty to host those who flee from persecution and protect them and their rights.

(Applause)

Many of them – most of them actually – are fleeing from terrorist groups such as Daesh. They are victims of terrorism and, beyond being refugees, they are men, women and children with personal stories, dreams, fears and profound wounds. Most of all, they have a future to build, also for the sake of their own countries and our own security, because the social reconstruction of their countries depends on them. So let me – actually, I should say let us – be very clear. The European Union will not turn back anyone who has the right to international protection. This is where we stand. This is where we continue to stand.

It would not be moral, it would not be just, it would not be legal, and it would not be in our interest, because this kind of measure has the potential to increase tensions and mistrust among peoples and nations. When I say among people, I also mean among people in our own societies. I am worried by the trends we are seeing inside American society at the moment, and that is why, with a lot of respect, I invited the President of the United States to pay attention to what is happening in his own country.

Only respect and cooperation can make us more secure. Only respect and cooperation can help us manage the many crises around the word. This is the European way. We work together with the countries experiencing a crisis and with their neighbours – all of them. A travel ban can maybe – maybe – give a temporary illusion of addressing the issue, but it can only create more frustration and anger. We need cooperation, not closures. We need to engage and to build common ground, not to ban. The EU will continue to be a partner and a strong point of reference for all countries in the region, regardless of the religion of their citizens. They can count on us.

We will continue to be a partner and a strong point of reference for all those in the world who believe in international cooperation, human rights and the rule of law. This is also why the European Union is the biggest donor in the world to the Syrian people and their neighbouring countries, with more than EUR 9 billion invested since the start of the fighting in Syria. So far, the European Union and the US have worked closely together, including at the UN Summit on Refugees in New York, because a global issue requires global common work. Bold commitments were made, both to protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, and to counter hate speech against refugees and migrants.

The EU is always ready to engage with the new US Administration to follow up on these commitments, as well as on the many other achievements we have managed to build together in recent years, and which are today key fundamental elements of our European Union policy – from climate change to the Iran deal, from the Middle East peace process to our support for the UN system and a free and fair trade system.

On the basis of this very clear international agenda, we will work with the US administration as partners with full reciprocal respect. This is the European Union way. These are our principles, our values and our interests. I believe we have a responsibility, both towards our citizens and our partners in the region and beyond, in the world, to be true to our values and identity, and show leadership and strength.

Syed Kamall, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, according to a study by the Cato Institute – a well-respected and classically liberal US think-tank – no American has been killed since 1975 on US soil by a national from any of the seven countries listed in President Trump’s executive order. So those of us who believe that law should be fair, that there should be equality under the law, that the primary functions of law should be enforcement of contracts and social order, will rightly be concerned by this arbitrary ban, which affects not only Muslims, but also affects Christians fleeing persecution and war. Sending a message that there is some inherent contradiction between being a good Muslim and being a good citizen of a Western democracy, simply plays into the arms of Daesh and other extremists who make exactly the same claim.

(Applause from certain quarters)

It plays into their arms because they make exactly the same claim when they are recruiting disillusioned and disconnected young Muslim men and women as terrorists. But whatever we in this Chamber may think, the fact is that Americans voted for a candidate who said what he thought, and now they find that they have a President who does what he promised to do. We must accept that this President, his priorities and these policies are the consequence of a growing tide of discontent to be found not only in middle America, but also in many of our countries. Electorates have lost faith in mainstream politicians on both sides of the Atlantic; electorates that have lost trust in politicians’ ability to listen and act upon their legitimate concerns; electorates attracted by simplistic solutions offered by politicians on the edges of the political spectrum.

While we express our concerns over President Trump’s executive orders, we must also realise that as long as the gains from globalisation are seen only in the portfolios of company directors and not in the pay packets of workers, as long as our migration and asylum policies are seen as more about compassion, diversity and political correctness, and less about ensuring integration, we will find politicians pursuing similar policies and making electoral gains in France, the Netherlands and elsewhere in the EU. So every time a mainstream politician dismisses those who disagree with the current direction of political travel in Europe and America, every time you dismiss them as racist or populist, this simply demonstrates an inability to offer a credible alternative.

In the meantime, no matter how strongly we feel about the current policies of the US President, let us all ask ourselves: what is more effective? The hot heads of protest or the cool heads of diplomacy? And let us make it clear to our American allies that decisions of the new US Administration in these executive orders, which lacked the support of Congress, which are arbitrary, which have been purely planned without preparation for the consequences, will not make America great again. Moreover, they will not strengthen, but only weaken, our transatlantic relationship. Let us also remember that friends are more likely to pay attention to friendly voices of reason, not raised voices of anger.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. DAVID-MARIA SASSOLI Vicepresidente

Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I will start from where Mr Pittella ended his intervention and also from where Mr Kamall started.

I do not understand something in your intervention, Mr Kamall. First of all you say, yes, it is not done, and then you say two phrases later that we have to accept it because he is elected. No, it is not because he is elected that he can go against human values and the values of the United States of America. Even an elected President with a majority – and he has no majority of the popular vote in the US – has to listen to the American Constitution, has to listen to the American judiciary. That is the starting point of my intervention.

In fact, some people are saying in the US that it helps security. That is nonsense. You have given the figures. Since 1975, all terrorists in the US came from three countries – Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. None of them is on the list of seven countries and nobody came from those countries since 1975 as a terrorist. So it is pure discrimination, and pure discrimination in a broader approach, because it is not only about this religious ban. It is about fuelling populism and nationalism – that is what the Trump administration is doing for the moment, and that is not only by appointing Mr Farage as his spokesman here in the plenary, but it is also by having the idea to designate Malloch as the ambassador and, more importantly, and let’s be aware of this, Steve Bannon, a member now of the National Security Council of the United States of America and a man who is openly saying that we want a worldwide right-wing movement to get rid of the European Union, to get done with the European Union, and they are sitting here. It is our Fifth Column, because Mr Farage is working with Mr Bannon. He sees him on a regular basis to effect one thing, which is to see how the European Union can be destroyed in the coming years. Not thinking, dear colleagues, of one thing, which is that it is a big risk to bid on nationalism and populism in Europe. We have had it already in the past. We have had it already in the 20th century. People would say that nationalism and populism was the solution for our continent and they created the most gross atrocities we have ever seen: 20 million deaths, Mr Farage, is what nationalism has cost in Europe. There is no family in the European Union which does not have a grandfather or a grandmother or a son or a daughter who was a victim of that nationalism and of that populism. And that is the reason why we created the European Union – to overcome that, to make a continent of peace.

Normally an American President – take Roosevelt, for example – wants to be the leader of the free world, and now I see an American President who wants to be the leader in the fight against the free world, against solidarity, and against tolerance. I think it is an existential moment for the European Union. We can only take one decision. We have the autocrat Putin who wants to defy Europe. We have President Trump, who has a populist nationalist view and wants to disintegrate us. We have the threat from the radical Islamists in the south and we have a bunch of people here who want to destroy within the European Union.

We can do one thing and that is unite, fight back as the European Union, and I hope in Valletta it will not only be the letter – and I support the letter of President Tusk on his behalf – that will be the conclusion. I hope for once that all European leaders have the courage to stand up together with the European Parliament and fight back against this bunch of nationalists and populists who want to destroy us.

Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the 45th President of the United States of America is truly opening a new chapter in the history of the US and in the history of democracy as well. Let us very clear: this ban on seven countries is not something that is put forward for security or one of the other reasons. It is very clearly a discriminatory act. It is targeting Muslims. Even though not only Muslims are hit, and even if it does not hit all Muslims, it is directed against people because of their religion.

Who could have imagined that such a thing could happen? Who could have thought that the freedoms and the rights that we all assume are normal and natural, that we have always had and think are guaranteed, can evaporate so quickly and can disappear so suddenly? This is apparently how liberal democracy dies. It vanishes very quickly with an executive order. The US built itself on religious freedom – that was one of the key figures of its founding – and on immigration. Now what is left of this American dream? How quickly did it vanish. But that is also the point isn’t it? All the rights, the freedoms and the liberties that we take for granted are actually not for granted. They always have to be fought for. They have to be fought for every single day. Democracy is not something that you set up, you write into your constitution and then, voilà, it is there. No, you have to defend it every single day. The same goes for human rights. They are never guaranteed. You have to work for them.

Here in Europe we pride ourselves on living in a union of peace, democracy and the rule of law. We are proud to defend the idea of human rights in the world as well, but do we really do enough to safeguard those values? Don’t we also restrict access at our borders? Don’t we also have walls and fences? Do we not also – even in this Chamber sometimes – hear people who discriminate against other people based on where they come from and based on their religion? And what are we doing about that? Every one of us, including the governments of the Member States, need to be clear on which side we stand. Do we stand on the side of hate and of walls, or do we stand on the side of democracy and of building bridges?

I think we need to build our European Union stronger, and for that we need to get our act together when it comes to finally solving the economic crisis that is still leading to so much unemployment, especially for young people. We need to coordinate our foreign policy and we need to be champions of international law because there are not many other people out there in the world who will do so. We need to step up our role in the UN and also when it comes to climate change. Let us make Europe the counter—model to Trump, the light of liberty of human rights and the rule of law, and also of generosity. Let us be the ones who show justice and compassion. Let us make sure that we are not just speaking of those values, but are actually demonstrating them in everything we do.

The Statue of Liberty was once given by France to the younger sister, America – sisters in freedom and rights. I think we should build more statues of liberty. We need to put them in Lesbos and Lampedusa, where people arrive full of hope and fear. We need to put them everywhere where people are standing up for their rights and also for their neighbour’s rights. Let us be the Europe that brings forward and champions those people who fight for their rights and the rights of others, no matter what their nationality, religion, sex or sexual orientation, and no matter where they come from. Europe needs to be building bridges and not walls. Let us do that together.

(Applause)

Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I can see that you are all very upset here this afternoon and I’ve no doubt that the events in the USA over the last few weeks have been a very profound shock to you; perhaps you’re right. You see, what has happened here is somebody has stood on a manifesto for election, got into office and, within one week, said that he will hold faith with his own electorate. It is called genuine democracy – unlike the system we have in the European Union, where the unelected Commissioners like Mogherini here have the sole right to propose legislation. So I am sure that it’s a great shock to you to see that a genuinely—elected democrat is doing what he was put in to do. And it must be, I would think today in Washington ...

Nigel Farage (EFDD). – And out of institutional respect, President, to the truth, perhaps you will understand and agree with me that within the European form of law—making it is the unelected Commission that has the sole right to propose legislation. If I’m wrong in saying that, you can throw me out of this Parliament right here, right now, this afternoon.

Nigel Farage (EFDD). – I will be respectful alright, and perhaps you will be too – for the right of the leader of a political party that won the European elections in the United Kingdom in 2014.

It seems to me that with all the anti—Trump rhetoric that is coming from everywhere, actually what we are hearing is the true nature of the European project, which is genuine anti-Americanism. Trump is motivated by protecting the United States of America from Islamic terrorism, whereas what has happened in this room and in governments around Europe is you have welcomed these people into your own homes.

But can we just for a moment look at the facts, amongst all the hyperbole and the hysteria? All that Donald Trump has done is taken seven countries that were identified by President Obama as posing a risk to the USA. Obama had already put in place extreme vetting; what Trump has done is, for 90 days, to say ‘let’s examine that vetting and see whether it is good enough’.

What I want to ask you, Mr Verhofstadt, and all the others, with your faux outrage today, is where were you when Obama in 2011 banned any Iraqi from going into the country for six months? Why do I hear no criticism in this Chamber, or from the Commission, of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and others, who have refused to take a single – not one – refugee or displaced person from Syria. And how can it be that on Holocaust Day last Friday, not a single one of you criticised the 16 countries in the world that ban Israeli Jews from even going to their country on holiday? What is this hypocrisy?

So perhaps what we need to do, Mr President, and through you to the Members, is to be a little bit more constructive. All of us here say we are democrats, well here is the chance to prove it. Let us invite President Trump to come here, to this European Parliament. I am sure that as democrats you would all agree that what we need to do is to have an open dialogue with the newly-elected most powerful man in the world. And if you throw that rejection back in my face then you prove yourself to be the anti-democratic zealots that I always thought you were.

Marcel de Graaff, on behalf of the ENF Group. – Mr President, Mr Tusk recently said that the United States of America is as great a threat to the EU as Russia and the Islamic State. Is Mr Tusk suffering from irrational anxiety, from panic attacks that disturb his view on reality? President Trump has rightfully introduced a temporary stop on the entry of citizens from countries that were already identified by his predecessor Mr Obama – as Mr Farage has said already – as countries that pose a threat to US security. This argument to improve border controls before allowing people to enter is completely valid. In the EU, we are directly suffering from the consequences of failing border control. We have suffered attacks in Brussels, Nice, Paris and Berlin, and many have lost their lives or were severely injured.

Trump called the EU a mess, and he’s right – it is a mess. The outcry against President Trump is pure hypocrisy, as Mr Farage has already said. Where were the protests against exclusion of Israeli citizens by the same Islamic countries that are now banned from the United States? You should be ashamed for jeopardising the lives of EU citizens because of the failing border controls in the EU. And I call upon Mr Tusk and the Commission to follow the example of President Trump: install national border control; keep jihadists out, not just from the seven countries that President Trump has singled out, but from many more that are responsible for the wave of illegal migrants in the EU.

(Applause from certain quarters.)

Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, during Nigel Farage’s speech a Member of the British Labour Party sat behind him with a sign, all the way through, and not till the end did someone come down to deal with that. I trust that something will be done to discipline this Member, because if not I will write my own sign and go and sit over there. It might say something like ‘sell—out’.

I will switch to English because that might be better. Respecting the role of the Commission – and in particular, in my case being a Vice—President of the Commission and also a High Representative – is also a sign of respect for this Parliament, because I was asked to do this job by the European Parliament, which, to my knowledge, is elected, and, by the way, also by the European Council, which is composed of Prime Ministers who are elected.

I see that there is a lot of confusion in some parts of the UK. The United States is a great country and a great democracy. America will have to deal with its own divisions and discussions. I know that, as Europeans, we specialise in making every crisis our own crisis, but it is clear that this is an American crisis that which will have to be dealt with by Americans. They will have to sort this out somehow, starting with the dangerous divisions and polarisations we are seeing in the American political, institutional and societal dynamics. But I am confident that our American friends will find their way out of these tensions and crises and continue to be the great country that most of you recognise that they are, have been, and will continue to be.

What is up to us here is not to try and solve the American contradictions of the present, but to be clear on where we stand, to affirm our own values, our own policies and our own interests, and be true to them. Those of you who underlined this are completely right. This is also up to you in this Chamber, and to many others in the European institutions. Be strong and show leadership. We might have lost one important partner on some files, but this makes our leadership even more important, relevant, and, I would say, indispensable.

All around the world, be it in our region or very far away, people are now looking to the European Union – maybe not in the UK, but in the rest of the world – as a point of reference with regard to multilateralism, free and fair trade, human rights, respect – which for us is the basis not only of institutional relations but also of human relations – and our own, in Italian we would say ‘humanism’. I am not sure if that works in English. Europeans are like this. Sometimes we are not proud enough of what we are, who we are and what we can be.

I will end by saying that some great Americans, good friends, only a few months ago were reminding us, the Europeans – here in Brussels – that Europeans should believe in themselves as much as their friends in the world believe in them. I think that this is the time for us, as Europeans, to realise the potential we have, to realise the responsibilities we hold in this particular historic moment, and to be that strong point of reference that the world needs at this moment, in particular in our region.

I was thinking of the paradox that we will have Prime Minister al-Sarraj from Libya here tomorrow. That was natural and the invitation came before the executive order came out, but a Libyan citizen will be here in Brussels discussing ways out of the Libyan crisis with us. When you ban something and build a wall, you might have the feeling that you are more secure, but you are actually building walls all around yourself and preventing yourself from having many opportunities. We Europeans are not like that. We will continue to be true to our values and to our way of working – the European way, which puts cooperation before confrontation. I think we will have to be proud of that and to do that even more.

Maroš Šefčovič,Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, once again I would like to thank you for the invitation and for the opportunity to present to you the Second State of the Energy Union Report, only a few hours after it was adopted this morning by the College. As you may remember, Parliament was one of my first stops in presenting the first report as well, and this is no coincidence. It reflects the importance I see in working very closely with you, the European Parliament, in co-piloting the Energy Union. Only through close partnership can we ensure that the legislative proposals of the November package will be adopted over the next nine months.

This is the objective I presented last week in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), in line with the December Declaration of our three institutions. A quick adoption is important so that our proposals can be swiftly transposed by the Member States and put into action. It would also send an important message to EU citizens that, when it comes to the Energy Union, we mean business. ‘We’ being all EU institutions.

While negotiations on the legislative proposals are ongoing, my colleagues and I are not sitting and waiting. To the greatest extent possible, the Commission will already start the implementation of the Energy Union on the ground. This is one of the key messages of the second State of the Energy Union: while 2016 was a ‘year of delivery’, 2017 will be a ‘year of implementation’. What does that mean in practice? It means that, apart from the upcoming legislation on the low-emission mobility, we have delivered on all Energy Union proposals, and we are now ready for the next phase.

The second State of the Energy Union serves exactly for that next phase. It give us a good overview of where we stand and what has been achieved both at EU and national levels. Our thorough analysis shows that the European Union is largely on track. For instance, among major global economies, Europe is one of the most greenhouse gas efficient. This creates significant ‘first-mover opportunities’ for European companies. But we are in no way in a position to rest on our laurels. Other parts of the world are also speeding up their efforts; they are also modernising their economies, and they are also increasing their competitiveness. There is no room for complacency if we want to remain global leaders in areas such as clean technologies.

The State of the Energy Union Report therefore also looks forward and identifies the work that still has to be done; it sets the political priorities for this year. In line with the Energy Union Strategy, these priorities go far beyond energy and climate alone. The Energy Union is about accelerating the modernisation of our entire economy: making it low-carbon; making it efficient in the use of energy and resources; making sure our economy is socially fair and consumer-oriented; and strengthening the Energy Union’s external dimension. In the current, ever-changing and volatile geopolitical context, we need European global leadership. This is true in the field of climate action but also for safeguarding our competitiveness, jobs and economic interests.

Such an over-arching approach implies strengthening the ties between the Energy Union Project and other European flagship policies, such as the circular economy, the Digital Single Market, the Security Union, our Skills Agenda, the EU’s economy and climate diplomacy, our investment policies, and so on.

What does it mean in practice? Simply put, when we look at the modernisation of our economy, we will also need to look at: the huge job potential of the green economy; the heavy economic costs of air pollution; the threats of cyber-attacks, and many other areas. It means we must make sure that each and every new measure benefits consumers, especially the vulnerable ones. It means that we will make real progress this year on providing the missing infrastructure links. We will look deeper into how we can avoid stranded assets, for example when preparing the next list of Projects of Common Interest.

It means that we must step up even further our investment policies, and for this purpose we will set up investment platforms on the ground in all Member States. It also means that we will make Europe’s global leadership more concrete by helping the developing world, Africa in particular, jump over the fossil age. These are just a few examples to give you the gist of the report. As you can see, a lot remains to be done.

With the State of the Energy Union, I am also launching a second Energy Union Tour. I will once again visit the Member States, and I hereby invite you to join me when I visit your constituencies. Even in the event that you cannot join me in person, I encourage you to help me bring the message of the Energy Union to your electorates. Help me convey the urgency of the energy transition, and the opportunities it brings to our citizens.

As I have mentioned earlier, we intend to make 2017 the Energy Union’s ‘year of implementation’. I will therefore use this tour to campaign and push for the swift implementation of the Energy Union not only at national level, but also at local level, which is becoming increasingly important.

I will discuss, with government representatives, the importance of presenting their National Energy and Climate Plans. We will together ensure that drafts will be presented by the end of 2017. I will also emphasise the need for a broad consultation of the plans not only within the Member States with all relevant stakeholders, but also with the neighbouring Member States on a regional level.

At the local level, my tour will be a good opportunity to showcase some of the most promising and innovative projects of cities and regions. It is important that we provide such projects with a strong tail-wind and match them with financing. I am glad to share with you that we are actively working on that, in cooperation with the Committee of the Regions. Showing concrete progress on the ground will help our citizens to visualise and grasp the multiple benefits of the clean energy transition.

Distinguished Members, let me once again thank you for your support in realising our joint ambition. I will stop here, as I would like to listen to the comments and suggestions of the honourable Members on today’s report.

Benedek Jávor, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the energy union is much more than a framework strategy for secure, affordable and climate—friendly energy. Sixty years ago, cooperation in the field of energy in Europe led to the European Union. Today, the energy union is a unique opportunity for us Europeans to strengthen and reinforce this cooperation in troubled times.

For a well—functioning energy union, we clearly need a high level of investment and cooperation among the Member States – and not primarily, in terms of gas and electricity, for infrastructure, but also for upscaling renewables and increasing energy efficiency efforts and exploiting the clear synergies between these aspects.

The Commission again confirms in its report the determination of the Commission to make the European Union the world number one in renewables, but the legislative proposals of the winter package do not live up to the promises; rather they put brakes on the energy transition and simply do not address key problems and market distortions. There is no real incentive to cut fossil fuel consumption. It allows subsidies to fossil fuel and also keeps the privileges of nuclear energy. Loopholes in the Energy Efficiency Directive are left unaddressed as well. According to the report, there was a very modest 0.4% growth in the share of renewables in the EU’s total energy use last year.

Clearly we must accelerate our efforts. The proposal still does not contain proper incentives for further deployment of renewables. Instead it undermines market access for renewable energy sources. While regulated household energy prices in about half of the EU are – rightly – identified as a problem, there are no effective proposals for dealing with energy poverty, instead of those distorting measures. I also see a lack of proper support for prosumers, such as energy cooperatives, to compete fairly in the market. The problem of energy dependency is also well addressed in the report, but the importance of energy efficiency in fighting against it is underestimated.

Finally, one issue remains almost untouched – the poor enforcement of the existing legislation affecting the energy market. This also implies that the Commission must make sure that nuclear installations are not exempted from public procurement provisions or competition law, which currently is not the case. Despite the report stating that we are well on track, I believe that a lot more needs to be done in order to achieve a unified energy market and a sustainable, secure energy system.

Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, this communication is very welcome, given the urgency around the need to mitigate the negative effects of climate change. Within the scope of the Energy Union Framework Strategy, I particularly welcome the increased focus on clean energy, rather than solely green energy. This is key. While the need for radical reductions in carbon are clear and well known, there are other notable pollutants such as NOx and PM which also have hugely detrimental effects on both human health and the environment, and these need to be addressed.

The Commission communication does mention health. I welcome the reference to the new NEC Directive and the reiteration – albeit only in a footnote – that in 2013 more than 450 000 people are estimated to have died prematurely from air pollution in the EU, and lost days at work caused by respiratory disease amount to a EUR 15 billion loss to the EU economy.

It is becoming ever more evident that the transition to clean – and not just green – transport must be given priority. I would like to see a clear preference given to investment in projects that combine the two objectives of lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and lowering other pollutants. This should include incentives at the level of the citizen. It is no coincidence that people experiencing fuel poverty are often also those who experience the worst possible health outcomes.

The transition to clean energy is already having a profound effect on the global energy market, and there are clear indications that clean energy is delivering record levels of investment, particularly in renewables and other new technologies. Let us make sure that we harness this momentum to create record—breaking levels of health improvement also.

Jakop Dalunde (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, we are in the midst of an energy revolution. Renewables are growing like never before and costs are falling rapidly. Now we have to seize the moment. I am, however, worried that the winter package proposed by the Commission is a missed opportunity if we want to unleash the full potential of the green transition. If we do not act now, we will not only fail in meeting our climate obligations, we will also miss out in reaping the rewards of being leaders of green innovation. We need to create a climate that attracts scientists from all over the world who want to come here and create breakthrough technologies, and we need to support the shift to new products and clean tech start-ups. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to stop protecting the old and start embracing the new. Only then will Europe be the true global leader in the green transition.

Roger Helmer (EFDD). – Mr President, the main element of the Commission’s current proposal is the revision of the ETS system. You recognised the problem that you call carbon leakage. I call it driving energy-intensive businesses offshore, and you have decided to give these industries free allowances to redress the balance, but you have created your own catch—22: if you give them enough allowances to stay competitive you have no hope of achieving emissions targets, but to achieve your emissions targets you cannot give them enough allowances. You face a stark choice between competitiveness and emissions targets. You cannot have both. You are not cutting emissions; you are merely driving them offshore. You have also created a structure which involves perpetual market intervention and distortion and creates a field day for lobbyists and lawyers, as industries fight each other for an ever-decreasing pot of free allowances.

The proposal to offer a tiered structure for different industry sectors only exacerbates the problem, and the use of the top 10% as a standard implies that 90% of European industries will be at a competitive disadvantage anyway. We face competition from China with massive cheap coal-fired generation, and from the US where Donald Trump promises to make low-cost energy a main driver of the US economy. A few years ago, our new President, Mr Tajani, said that our energy policies were creating ‘an industrial massacre in Europe’. Today’s proposals are the final coup de grâce.

Steven Woolfe (NI). – Mr President, we need energy. We need it to heat our homes, to provide the businesses that create our food, and we even need it for this Chamber. But energy has a cost. The EU wants a low—carbon secure and competitive economy; they have created this framework strategy for a resilient Europe with a forward—looking climate change policy.

This sounds positive, optimistic, an energy utopia – but it is not the reality people will live in, is it? EU policy will control the sources, flow, distribution, delivery and billing of the whole of the European energy industry. It will suppress national governments’ abilities to provide the best energy services and prices for their people. In truth, once again, it is a classical big government power grab. Infrastructure will be paid for by the taxpayer, corporate subsidies will be paid for by the taxpayer, and higher bills will be paid for by the taxpayer, while all profits will be distributed between the EU and global corporations. The user is always the loser in the EU.

Kaja Kallas (ALDE). – Mr President, three energy packages later we are still trying to achieve one important objective: make the Energy Single Market work for businesses, for consumers and for our environmental goals. Three packages later, the electricity market is still the fourth—lowest ranked service according to the Consumer Scoreboard. It shows one thing quite clearly: that protecting national energy production and sticking to rigid centralised systems is not the right answer. Therefore, one key objective for all of us in building the Energy Union should be to bring the European energy market up to speed with the 21st century by bringing technology and utilities together. But let us take smart meters, for instance, where, eight years after the Third Energy Package, some countries are still discussing whether the deployment of smart meters is relevant or not. In the meantime, some countries are already talking about advanced smart meters that provide real-time data instead of near real-time data, enabling real-time data flows and data-sharing within the energy markets, with this being absolutely essential to build competitive and innovative energy markets for tomorrow. Therefore, we should discuss whether smart meters should be made mandatory so that all consumers have real-time data and real-time control over their energy consumption.

Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR). – Mr President, solidarity, as provided for in the Lisbon Treaty, should be a founding principle of the Energy Union. The construction of Nord Stream 2 and decisions about the Opal pipeline undermine this principle, making the countries of my region, in particular Ukraine, less resilient to Russian energy blackmail. Both projects also increase the European Union’s dependence on one source of energy supplies. This should be considered by the Commission.

Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Vice-President of the Commission for his presentation.

You mentioned, Mr Šefčovič, that for you, 2017 means implementation and it means real business, and you can certainly prove that very easily because, as you know, there is one project that is in conflict with the whole idea of the European Energy Union and in conflict with its aims, and that is Nord Stream 2. It is increasing dependence on Russia and increasing dependence on gas. It is distorting competition and it is changing the architecture of the European energy markets. It will be a means for Gazprom to assume an even more dominant market position and it is also in conflict with the rules in the third Energy Market Package about unbundling.

So, if you want to make the project of Energy Union credible and stable, you need to act. You need to stand up for the legislation that we have and the aims we have, and take a clear view and clear action. It is very easy to prove that you mean business with Energy Union. Please do that.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, the recast of the Renewable Energy Directive is a key part of the Clean Energy package. I am delighted that I will have the chance to work on the proposals that will shape European renewable energy policy for the decade to come and will decide whether we will achieve our goal of remaining the world leader in renewable energy technologies.

I have been asked on numerous occasions in the past week what my priorities for the Renewable Energy Directive are. The answer is very short: investor certainty. Ensuring the climate is right to attract investment into the European renewable energy sector is the key challenge we face in the recast of this directive. It will be important that we put in place an ambitious, but achievable and stable, legislative framework. This is something that we have failed to do in recent years, the biofuels area being a case in point.

In Europe we are often great at patting ourselves on the back in terms of decarbonisation efforts, but the reality is that the rest of the world is waking up to the potential of clean energy sources at a time when our investment is falling due to policy uncertainty. Europe’s share of global investment in renewable energy has reduced from 50% in 2005 to 20% in 2014. European investment in renewable energy dropped by around 20% between 2014 and 2015 for the good reason that the rest of the world sees the benefits of renewable energy. Costs are coming down, but there is a great opportunity for us here and we must grasp it. It is not just about saving the planet: it is about economic benefits and job creation. We must support it with legislation.

Peter Kouroumbashev (S&D). – Mr President, I believe that reaching a 27% EU common target for renewables without setting national targets is not possible. One of the reasons for the success of the EU, and why the EU became a global leader for renewables, was our 20-20-20 programme with targets for each Member State. I do not believe in systems in which everybody is responsible for everything. Mr Šefčovič, if you want to fly with your – or our – Airbus 380 energy package, you must distribute as a good manager responsibilities to every member of the crew – responsibilities with higher priority than flexibility in each Member State. That is why I want to ask you, Mr Šefčovič, to initiate a revision of the European Council decision not to set national targets which was taken in October 2014. I hope that after the change of that decision I can wish you a safe flight with that Airbus 380 energy package.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Mr President, I very much welcome Mr Šefčovič’s work on this Energy Union, and it is one of the challenges we are facing in the Union. It is encouraging that the growth of the EU economy is starting to decouple from CO2 emissions, so economic growth is possible without increasing emissions. It is clear from the State of the Union speech that we heard, and which we saw in the papers, that more investment is needed, especially in electric transmission lines across the borders, to really create the reaches because with better functioning reaches we have better functioning energy markets. Despite all the efforts we have made in the EU and the Member States, renewable energy sources still constitute only 16.4% of the EU’s final energy consumption. From these figures, I also think that we have to see that the EU cannot rule out any sort of renewable energy sources, not even biomass, but we have to guarantee they are sustainably produced. Energy efficiency in homes also very much improves people’s quality of life.

Maroš Šefčovič,Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members not only for their encouraging words and strong support, but also for the call to be even more ambitious in our efforts to transform the European energy system and to do it through robust governance. I would like to assure you that, whenever it is possible to improve our proposals, we are ready to work very closely with the Members of the European Parliament and with the Council to make sure that the proposal we put on the table last November really leads to the most profound transformation of the energy systems in Europe since they were built in today’s centralised and fossil-fuel-centred way.

Our two afternoon plenary debates confirmed that we in Europe are following developments in the USA with growing anxiety. My colleague, High Representative/Vice-President Mogherini, was discussing with you one hour ago the problems with visas and the proper treatment of visitors to the United States. And I will, of course, say a few words about climate action and the Paris Agreement.

I want to make it very clear that, for us, the Paris Agreement is a historic achievement. It is a binding international treaty which was jointly negotiated, approved and ratified and has entered into force, and we are ready to continue our communication and exchange of views with the United States because we believe we have very strong arguments. The implementation of the Paris Agreement is important not only for preserving life on our planet, for preserving mankind, but also because it has huge potential for modernising our economy: from bringing electricity to the 1.3 billion people on this planet who do not currently have access to it to really accelerating the implementation and use of all the innovations we have in our labs and our companies.

I also want to make it very clear that Europe is ready to continue to lead in these efforts. I know that this readiness to provide leadership is very much welcomed by our partners across the world, be it on energy transition or climate action, be it in the area of development aid, where we want to use our clean technology to provide access to electricity to the peoples in Africa and in Asia, or be it on free and fair trade.

I hope that this realistic and pragmatic discussion will take place again in the United States because I can hardly think of any other nation which is so affected by weather-related disasters, be it hurricanes or whirlwinds, or any of the other tragedies we have seen on our screens.

You have been highlighting the importance of putting citizens as consumers at the centre of our efforts and using this energy transition to fight energy poverty and air pollution, and I absolutely agree with you. This is a must for the European Union. We cannot lose 450 000 people every year because of high pollution. We cannot have, on our TV screens, pictures of our cities which remind us of Beijing or Delhi, and we cannot accept the fact that 50 million Europeans have to choose between paying their energy bills or buying food for their families. Therefore, we are introducing what I believe will lead to a more common approach in fighting energy poverty. The European Observatory on Energy Poverty will be up and running by the end of this year. We will be talking about how, jointly with the EU Member States, we can tackle this challenge together.

We believe that energy efficiency is a very important part of the answer, and that new electricity market design, with strong rules on the procedure leading to disconnection, should be another very important lever for improving the situation of our citizens. I know that Europe’s mayors – who very often are the first addressees of citizens’ complaints about air pollution or energy poverty or vulnerable sections of society – are ready to work with us very actively in the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy.

I understand all those honourable Members who have reminded us of the importance of energy security. You know that we are dealing with that very seriously, and I think this is strongly reflected in our report: 22 out of 28 countries are actually better off; having better infrastructure and interconnectors with reverse flows is giving us much more confidence; the European market is much more liquid than it ever was before; we are open to LNG and to Caspian gas; and we are ready to develop the East Med gas reserve with its huge potential, probably as big as that of the Norwegian reserve.

We are also putting into practice rules which will no longer allow any abuse of a dominant position in the European market. In this context I would also like to thank and congratulate the Maltese Presidency because today they managed to secure the mandate for trilogue on the security of gas supply and I believe that, working together with the representatives of the European Parliament, this very important legislation on providing greater security of supply for European consumers will be agreed very soon.

The last two points I want to mention concern investment and infrastructure. I totally agree with Mr Kelly, who underscored the importance of regulatory stability, vision and the alignment of goals at global, European, national and local levels. We have to work on that, and if we achieve it I am sure that we will also be able to secure investment because this represents a huge investment opportunity for private investors and for cities, and I am sure there will be huge demand in terms of putting all the new and innovative technologies at the service of our citizens.

Mr Tamburrano suggested that we could use crowd funding, and this is actually one of the options we are studying under the Capital Markets Union. We are going to explore the possibilities here and look at how we can merge these two unions and use the potential of capital markets to invest in European energy infrastructure.

I totally agree with you when we talk about investment that it should be smart investment. We should be very careful about stranded assets. We should think twice about where we put both private and public money. And this leads me to my last point, on excessive infrastructure.

I was listening to you very carefully and I know very well your concerns on Nord Stream 2. I want to reassure you that European law would be fully respected, and that we are highlighting the fact that, even in such a harsh winter as this one, the transport capacity used for getting Russian gas to Europe is somewhere between 50% to 60%. I would emphasise too that we have consensus in the European Union – and the High Representative could be the best witness to that because we discussed it in the Foreign Affairs Council too – about the preservation and continuation of the Ukrainian gas transit route. There is consensus among all the EU Member States that we want to have it operational after 2019.

I would like to thank the honourable Members for a great debate. I am looking forward very much to working on our proposals which are on the table and on the proposals on low-carbon mobility which we are going to present in the course of this year.

Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE), in writing. – I believe that a true European Energy Union is crucial if we want to revive and modernise the entire European economy. By overcoming energy fragmentation or ‘energy islands’ we are moving to a cheaper, more efficient and cleaner energy era. I believe that the completion of the Energy Union is as well extremely important if we want to achieve the goals of the Paris climate change agreement. However, I am still very concerned by such projects as the Nord Stream II, which completely sabotage the main goal of reducing energy dependence on third countries such as Russia.

Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), in writing. – We must not ignore the wider geopolitical repercussions of our policies in the Energy Union. For instance, allowing the doubling of the capacity of the Nord Stream pipeline has a destabilising effect on Ukraine, since it will enable Russia to reroute all the gas currently transiting though the former. As you know, full-blown war recently returned to eastern Ukraine, with indiscriminate shelling of civilians and soldiers alike. Therefore, it would be extremely irresponsible to help Putin by giving him another weapon to strangle Ukraine. In hybrid warfare, financial destabilisation can play a very significant role. Furthermore, the rerouting of the gas from the Ukrainian pipeline would put our eastern Member States in a more precarious position, since we currently lack sufficient interconnectors for the gas to make its way back from Germany. The current political climate should push us towards decreasing our energy dependence on Russia, instead of further solidifying our ties with this unreliable partner by investing in new infrastructure projects, which would become stranded assets once we truly pursue our goal of becoming energy independent.

Federica Mogherini,Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, I believe that the upcoming informal summit in Malta, starting on Friday, will be an opportunity for us to show that efficient – and at the same time human – management of migration is possible and is a must, if we work together, both as Europeans in solidarity and in partnership with our friends, the countries of origin and of transit.

We must repeat once again, as we did here just an hour ago, that refugees must be welcome. This is a strong position that the European Union has and will continue to have. At the same time, without any contradiction – and, on the contrary, with some complementarity – we must say that the pain and the deaths caused by smugglers have to be stopped. I have seen with my own eyes people who have managed to survive – their stories are ones that nobody should have to live through, nobody should have to listen to. It is, first and foremost, a humanitarian duty not only to save lives but also to protect the lives of the people who are migrating.

As you know very well, in the last two years we have been working literally day and night to reduce human suffering, first and foremost, and to reduce the loss of life on the various routes leading to Europe: in the Mediterranean Sea, of course, but also in places where the loss of life and the violation of human rights are less evident to the TV cameras, in particular in the desert. In the central Mediterranean, our Operation Sophia alone saved more than 32 000 people last year. Each and every one of them represents a precious result for me in a war that we are at last waging as the European Union. We also apprehended more than 100 smugglers, who are now in the hands of the law.

Our migration compacts with five African countries have started to reduce substantially the irregular flows. For instance, the number of people crossing irregularly from Niger into Libya has decreased to its lowest level in years. We thus see that our action is starting to deliver in real terms, the first concern always being to save and protect human lives.

The report adopted yesterday by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Development on the role of our external action on addressing the movements of refugees and migrants encourages me to keep on this path of closer cooperation with third countries, including in relation to regular channels for entry to the European Union. I would ask for your support on this specific point because, among the commitments made by the European Union with our partners at the Valletta Summit last year was that of working more on the regular channels for migration. The more we work to prevent irregular flows, the more we need to offer regular channels. We know very well that this is a difficult debate in each and every one of the Member States and also in this Parliament. It was not by chance that, back in December, the Commission increased the resources for various mobility opportunities, and this is just the beginning.

Last year we had more than 4 500 deaths at sea in the central Mediterranean. Believe me, I wish we could name each and every one of them because, as long as we refer just to numbers, it is much easier to forget them or to see this as a phenomenon. Each and every one of these people has a history, a story, a name and a future – or they should have had. Yet at times we do not even know their names. That is why all of us in the European Union need to do more, in a spirit of solidarity among Europeans and with our partners, who also have to take some ownership of the management of this problem. When we see people dying in the desert, or close to the Libyan coast, we need to have discussions with, and to help, our partners do their part to save lives and to make sure that the protection of human beings and their human rights is fully taken on board – and I will come back to that in a minute. We all need to do more, first of all to end the suffering, and to manage human mobility better.

Last week I presented a package of additional measures, worth EUR 200 million, that will feed into the discussion at the Malta Summit the day after tomorrow.

Migration has, of course, always existed. I have been accused many times of constantly pointing out, firstly, that, until a couple of decades ago, migration used to be from Europe to the rest of the world and, secondly, that if we had to live without migrants in all our societies and all our economies we would suffer a lot of negative consequences. Imagine the cost of non—migration to our European economies and you will realise that, indeed, we are talking not about a bad phenomenon but about a phenomenon that needs to be managed, first of all, as I have said, in order to protect human beings.

We all know that there is no easy way to stop the suffering and manage the phenomenon better. We know very well that the real solution implies, first of all, the economic development of Africa and also the democratic development of Africa. Here our daily work is ongoing, with the compacts with the five priority countries, the external investment plan, the trust fund, and the overall work we are doing in partnership, in particular, with Africa and also working – and I know Commissioner Mimica will be joining us for the following debates – in the framework of our cooperation and partnership with the African Union and the different countries in Africa, as well as with civil society and citizens in Africa, because we know very well that the key to development lies not only in the economy but also in society and a civil space in which Africans can find their place and their way.

Apart from that, we also have to focus now on what kind of quantitative and qualitative leap we can make in our joint work and the immediate steps we can take together and with our partners. So we name three proposals that will be on the table at the Malta Summit on Friday that I believe can be fully in line with the partnership approach we have taken on the central Mediterranean routes and with the African partnership from the beginning of last year and can also constitute a clear change and a clear step forward in having a more effective result.

First, we want to increase training for the Libyan coastguard. I am sure many of you remember a meeting we had here in this building several months ago with the cast and the director of Fuocoammare, the documentary film that is now nominated for an Academy Award. They told us one simple thing, among many others, namely that we should do something about the Libyan territorial waters because, while before we were seeing people dying close to Lampedusa in international waters, we are now seeing people dying in Libyan territorial waters. We cannot act inside Libyan territorial waters: that is a Libyan responsibility. But we can help and we can train and support the Libyan authorities in this work. This will be one of the things I will discuss tomorrow with Prime Ministeral-Sarraj. It will not be the only one, but I will come to that in a minute.

Just a few days ago Operation Sophia launched the second package of training for a carefully vetted group of officials from the Libyan coastguard and navy and we now propose to increase the training even more substantially, including – and this is a very important point for me – human rights, women’s rights and respect for international standards and obligations.

Secondly, we propose to step up our efforts on the southern borders of Libya at the point before the migratory flows enter a country that is, by definition, a difficult country in which to operate. We have already started to facilitate a common approach between Libya, Chad and Niger, in particular. Managing their common border is an interest they share, inter alia for security reasons. They see us as Europeans with our main focus always on the migration flows through Libya towards Europe – and I see a lot of attention paid to this, not in this Chamber but certainly in terms of public opinion – but there is also a flow of a different kind going from Libya to the south, to the Sahel and possibly connecting with the Lake Chad region and with Boko Haram. There is a security challenge there too: to control the border south of Libya in a more effective way.

So managing this common border is in their common interest as neighbours, and it is also in our interest as Europeans. We are active in the region with three missions and operations and are already training local security forces, including in respect for human rights. I stress this because, for me, this is a key component of all the training we do with local forces. These are powerful tools. We can make them even more powerful, improving cooperation among all actors in the region and taking a regional approach, including working with the African Union and its newly elected leadership, as we have the new African Union Commission President who was the Foreign Minister of Chad until a few days ago.

Thirdly, we will increase our support – at least this is my proposal – for the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UNHCR. For me this is key, because you can act to the north, at sea, and to the south, in the Sahel, but the presence you already have now in Libya is there and will not disappear by itself. We all know very well that the human-rights angle of this is extremely serious, so we have to find a way of addressing the dramatic situation of stranded migrants inside Libya in a very challenging security situation. In recent weeks I have met both Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and William Swing, the General Director of the IOM. Together we discussed ways in which the European Union can increase its support to the IOM and the UNHCR in order for them to work more, and better, inside Libya and chiefly in the places where the migrants are.

For me, cooperation with these two organisations is the best possible way to guarantee the protection of human rights for migrants inside the country. A first project, worth EUR 20 million, was adopted in December under the Trust Fund for Africa. It will allow IOM to offer alternatives to the first group of 5 000 stranded migrants and take action to improve the dreadful conditions in detention centres. I believe that this will be a key element of our policy, where we will need to work as a team – the UNHCR, IOM and the European Union, together with the Libyan authorities, in trying to create the conditions for this to work.

All these actions are designed with the bigger picture in mind. It is not an issue for today’s debate, but I think it is essential to keep clearly in mind that the key element of our work is supporting peace and reconciliation in Libya. Again, as I said, this is not an issue for this debate, but this is my main work. Our work with Libya goes far beyond the issue of managing migration. I know this is the top priority for political parties, governments and public opinion in Europe, but believe me when I tell you that the main point for us is working on finding a political solution to the crisis in Libya. I discussed this with Martin Kobler, the UN Special Envoy, just a few days ago here in Brussels, and again this will be the main point we will discuss tomorrow with Prime Minister al-Sarraj here in Brussels. We will also be discussing it with the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday.

However, while we keep working to reach a political solution for Libya, there is much we can do in the meantime – working with the Libyan coastguard and navy, working with mayors and local authorities, working with Libya’s neighbours – not only to the east and west but also to the south – as a Libyan neighbour ourselves, because the European Union is a neighbour to Libya, and, with respect, trying to help and trying to focus – as I said – on a political solution that can bring stable democracy to the country, uniting it more than it is now. We will continue to work in partnership along the lines we defined together in Valletta last year in partnership with our friends, not only the authorities but also civil society organisations, and in partnership with the international organisations and the UN system with which we are involved.

In a week’s time in Malta we will have the first stocktaking exercise of the Valletta Summit action plan. Next week I will have the pleasure of initiating it, with the Maltese Foreign Minister, in order to see, with our African partners and the partners from the northern part of Africa, where we are on the implementation of the action plan and what is the way forward in terms of partnership. I believe that, as Europeans, we have finally started to play our part. We are starting to see some results. I mentioned the tens of thousands of lives which have at last been saved, but even if there was only one person dying at sea or in the desert, and whether we saw it or not, this is a responsibility and a problem that we are ready to try to solve.

Again, it is not just a European responsibility. It is also a responsibility we have to share with our African partners and, specifically here, our Libyan partners. I hope – and I believe – that the Heads of State and Government in Malta on Friday will commit even more strongly to saving lives, both at sea and in the desert, to fighting the smugglers and to protecting the dignity of all human beings. This also means being true to our values, and that links us to the previous debate here in this Chamber.

Kristina Winberg (EFDD). – Mr President, before we start the debate on this item I would make the following points: this item was added to the agenda after Beatrix von Storch tabled a major interpellation on managing migration in the Mediterranean, on behalf of ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin! Das ist keine Wortmeldung ...

This is not a point of order. Tell me which rule you are applying.

Kristina Winberg (EFDD). – Mr President, I do not have the rule, but this was something we tabled.

Cecilia Wikström, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to say thank you, Madam Commissioner, for your engagement, your commitment and your good intentions. It goes without saying that the European Union should always contribute to stability, growth and the protection of human rights and democracy in our neighbouring countries, but we must never, ever, outsource our own responsibilities and obligations in respect of migration policies and people in need, or externalise our borders.

In times where, on a daily basis, we witness what the ugly face of populism in power really means, all decent and progressive forces on this continent need to unite. We need to put our differences aside and take the bold steps required to preserve the values that created the foundations of this very Union on the ruins of the Second World War. Openness, respect, a rejection of nationalism and egoism and, instead, the promotion of human decency, these are what we must now engage in.

Europe flourishes when we work together, and when we act on the basis of visions and hope, rather than our fears and prejudices. I hope that is the spirit in which you will work in Valletta this weekend and I wish you much success. I hope we bring back the message that what we need now are shared values and shared responsibilities for the people in need. Please, Madam Commissioner, bring that message back.

Jane Collins, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, the Maltese Prime Minister, Mr Muscat, has predicted that the number of people crossing to Europe will reach record levels. Most of these people will come from Libya to Italy via people traffickers, as we know. The best way to stop these huge numbers of people illegally coming into Europe and to stop the large numbers of tragic deaths in the Mediterranean is surely to turn the boats back and process the migrants offshore. This is what Australia did, and it worked. That is why six European countries have now been in private talks with Australia, asking them which way to work things out, because they know that the EU way is failing. People traffickers are criminals. Only today, we have been warned by Italian officials that jihadis are actually plugging the gaps in funding for their actual campaign by smuggling people into Europe, because their oil money is running out. The EU, and many people in this Chamber, need to realise that their naive, soft-hearted approach to migration has not only failed, but has actually cost lives and funded terrorism and crime.

Roberta Metsola (PPE). – Mr President, at this point in history it is difficult to have a debate on migration without taking the opportunity to reaffirm that the bottom line is that Europe remains committed to acting as a safe haven for those fleeing war and persecution and who are eligible for protection. Despite our long debate on how we should go about it, that must remain our core principle forged through the very worst of times. That must be the starting point for our discussions and we must be the example to the world on this issue. The situation in Libya remains precarious and the EU must stand ready to help without imposition. But while the Libyan people must remain masters of their own destiny, the EU does have a crucial role in helping with aid and expertise in helping Libya to build up its border management and its asylum systems, improving its law enforcement capabilities and helping in its fight against terrorism. We are already doing a lot as a Union, but we must stand ready to do more. It is only with a functioning Libyan State that we will ever have a proper chance to agree together on enhanced cooperation to sustainability and safely manage migration flows while defeating terrorism, destroying trafficking networks’ business models and ultimately saving lives. That said, we must be careful to avoid giving the impression that a magic bullet addressing migration flows from Libya can suddenly appear from one day to the next. It is a lengthy process, and there are many steps yet to be taken before there are proper functioning State operators there. We have to acknowledge this or risk alienating our citizens on this issue and playing into populists’ hands.

Marietje Schaake (ALDE). – Mr President, the High Representative spoke today about the European way, when we critically debated President Trump’s executive order, and while I cannot agree more that the EU must step up to the plate, as a values-based global player, we are hardly in a position to preach on migration or on the treatment of refugees.

The deal, or so-called Statement, with Turkey, set the tone for cynical outsourcing of EU responsibilities. Doctors Without Borders refuses European funds as a result. And look at the failure of European Member State governments to secure our common borders, and to provide proper shelter for those fleeing war! They still do not have a common position on the war in Syria, and the numbers of people coming to our shores and dying at sea are still very high.

But instead of learning from past mistakes, this Turkey arrangement now risks becoming a blueprint for more deals, including with Libya. So I would like to know how refugee and migrant rights will be respected in a situation where camps are labelled as resembling concentration camps, and torture is taking place. How does managing borders square with the right to asylum and how do we make sure that EU ...

Let us go back to who created these problems in Libya. It was Blair, Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama – all gone, and cheered on by this place – yet we are expected to clean up their mess. But I have an answer. We should consider building a wall. A wall of nation-state naval frigates to block this invasion. And then we deploy special forces, again nation state special forces, to destroy the people traffickers and their vessels.

Let us get tough, because our human rights and our safety as European citizens are under threat. Let us take a leaf out of President Trump’s policies. Let us protect our borders, our way of life, our culture and our liberties because – I tell you – they are under threat, and I for one, as the only female UK politician that stood by Mr Trump, am actually in total support of what he is doing.

You have got such a rocket coming to you! You think Brexit was bad: well, Trump is with a nuclear warhead.

Neven Mimica,Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, on behalf of High Representative Madam Mogherini, I would like to convey her regret and apologies for not attending this parliamentary debate in full due to the conflicting agenda points that led her to the continuation of talks between Serbia and Kosovo this evening in Brussels.

This has indeed been a very interesting debate. As we have seen on previous occasions, the honourable Members hold somewhat divergent views when it comes to the issue of migration. However, I also take note that the large majority of the honourable Members support our approach to migration management, complementing our long-term efforts, such as the Partnership Framework, with the short-term measures outlined in our recent communication on the Central Mediterranean. I am very grateful for this support.

Even though some may like to present it in this way, there is no quick fix to the current situation. Only by applying a comprehensive and tailor-made approach – not replicating any other arrangements – continuing to save lives at sea, cracking down on smugglers and traffickers, addressing the root causes of migration and working more in particular with our African and international partners, will we be able to more effectively manage migration. This is what we will be taking from our debate today.

Neven Mimica,Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable Members, when South Sudan became independent in 2011 there were high hopes for the future of the world’s newest state. Six years later, those hopes lie in tatters. Although 18 months of brutal civil war were formally brought to an end by a peace agreement in August 2015, fighting continues throughout much of the country. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, continue to die each month.

On 1 December last year, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan noted that a steady process of ethnic cleansing was underway in the country, using starvation, gang rape and the burning of villages. The United Nations Secretary-General warned in November that South Sudan stood on the edge of the abyss, with a catastrophe imminent. Around one-and-a-half million refugees have fled to neighbouring countries, while almost two million persons are internally displaced. Some four million persons are short of food, with more than one million children under the age of five acutely malnourished. There is a danger of widespread famine later this year.

Faced with this bleak situation, the European Union is very much engaged in addressing these immense challenges. The European Union, as a witness to the 2015 peace agreement, is working vigorously to support its implementation. The European Union is an active member of the peace monitoring institutions established by the agreement and is providing financial assistance for implementation of parts of the agreement. The European Union works as closely as possible with the countries of the region and with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the African Union collectively to encourage implementation of the peace agreement. Although South Sudan, much to our regret, has not yet acceded to the Cotonou Agreement and is therefore not eligible for the full range of development support, the European Union remains committed to help. In 2016, the European Union provided EUR 143 million for humanitarian assistance to South Sudan, as well as for supporting the provision of basic services. We fear that this year’s needs maybe even greater.

The European Union is also providing financial assistance to neighbouring countries to assist them to deal with the enormous influx of refugees. Let me take this opportunity to commend Uganda, in particular, for its compassion and efficiency in sheltering over 650 000 refugees.

The European Union has imposed an arms embargo against South Sudan and is lobbying – so far without success – for the United Nations Security Council to follow suit.

The European Union is particularly shocked at the gross violation of international human rights and international humanitarian law that have been perpetrated by all parties with complete impunity. An individual who orders or commits criminal acts of violence must be brought to justice. To this end, the European Union stands ready to support the African Union in establishing as rapidly as possible the hybrid court for South Sudan envisaged in the peace agreement.

Let us seize the opportunity today to send a number of clear messages to all parties in South Sudan. There can be no military solution to the divisions of South Sudan. All parties must observe the ceasefire in full and repudiate any speech inciting ethnic hatred. The United Nations mission in South Sudan must be allowed to exercise its mandate in full, and without hindrance. The regional protection force that was mandated by the UN Security Council last year to reinforce the United Nations mission in South Sudan must be deployed swiftly. The South Sudanese authorities must allow unrestricted humanitarian access to those in need. All parties must be brought into an inclusive political process based on the 2015 peace agreement, which remains a blueprint, if properly implemented, for establishing a functional institutional framework for the state of South Sudan.

We welcome the national dialogue announced by President Salva Kiir in December last year. Any step to foster dialogue and reconciliation between many groups in South Sudan is welcome. A political dialogue and consultation should be representative of, and trusted by, the entire population of South Sudan. Such a process should be initiated without delay and without obstacles. There is no shortcut to full and fair representation. I urge President Salva Kiir and the transitional government to look again at the structure of the national dialogue, with a view to ensuring that it is a generally inclusive process. In particular, we hope that a way can be found, and should be found, to allow the South Sudanese Council of Churches, which is widely seen as an impartial interlocutor, to play a central role in the national dialogue.

Let me also mention the Cotonou Agreement again. As mentioned, the development needs of South Sudan are evidently vast, yet we cannot release all the funds potentially available as long as South Sudan has not acceded to the Agreement. We urge the transitional government to move forward rapidly with accession. South Sudan is, sadly, a country which has known more war than peace.

The European Union will continue, in close coordination with the United Nations, the African Union, the United States and the countries of the region, to do everything it can to support the South Sudanese leadership to take decisive steps to embrace peace and to build a state that serves the interests of its citizens. Thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to our discussion.

Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, as an enthusiastic supporter of South Sudan’s independence, it is very sad for me that there is so little to celebrate in its first five years in existence as an independent state. It has been plunged into civil war, and there have been widespread war crimes and atrocities committed ever since 2013. I naturally welcome the recent joint calls from IGAD, the UN and the African Union for a cessation of hostilities, and it is an encouraging sign today that rebel leader Riek Machar has indeed backed this call, but the fighting sadly goes on. I note that the King of Morocco is on an official visit today to South Sudan, and this coincides with Morocco rejoining the African Union after 35 years of absence. Dare I say, at a time when the European Union is shrinking thanks to Brexit, it is encouraging to see that the African Union is actually expanding.

A further source of expansion for the African Union could come from the re-recognition of Somaliland, a promise that was made to me in person by a South Sudanese leader prior to independence. We must now hope that the talks in South Sudan can return under the national dialogue format, reminding President Salva Kiir that it is only with peace that South Sudan and its people will be able to see the benefits of its abundant natural resources.

Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the Commissioner has spoken of the immense challenges and the need to end the suffering of the people in South Sudan. Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Committee has warned that South Sudan is on the brink of genocide, starvation, gang rape and fighting between militias escalating to levels that seem to amount to ethnic cleansing. The gravity of these crimes and the extraordinary violence, while there is impunity for the perpetrators, has to end.

Besides these atrocities, we see a crackdown on civil society and the media, preventing accountability and documentation. So it is very urgent that we act now as the European Union, as well as in context of cooperation with the African Union and the United Nations. We have to be aware that already hundreds of thousands have been killed since 2013 and over three million people have been displaced, and they in turn face starvation. It is crucial that the atrocities stop, a peace process is set up, and this cycle of violence, revenge, violence, revenge, must end.

I welcome the fact that there is an arms embargo in place, but we must be vigilant also on the export of systems that allow for the tracking and tracing of people – surveillance, hacking and exfiltrating information. There are known cases where, despite sanctions, systems from the EU have still been exported, including to South Sudan. So it is important that we ensure accountability and ensure that the EU takes a leading role in this terrible conflict.

Eduard Kukan (PPE). – Mr President, the situation in South Sudan has been significantly deteriorating in the past months. Massacres, gang rapes and destruction, combined with hunger, are leading to the population fleeing the country. There needs to be a political solution to the civil war. This involves advances on the proposed national dialogue and a return to the 2015 agreement. The EU should contribute to the South Sudan peace process, especially in the area of justice, where our assistance can be instrumental. I would therefore like to support the earlier call by the Vice-President/High Representative to establish a hybrid court that will investigate the atrocities committed. This is why our political and diplomatic influence can bring actual tangible results for the South Sudanese population, who deserve much more than the current international community is offering to them.

Neena Gill (S&D). – Mr President, we have heard already that over the past three years in the conflict in South Sudan tens of thousands of lives have been lost, three million displaced and 70% of women in camps raped. This cycle of violence must be broken. We have an arms embargo, but what are we doing to enforce it internationally? Companies in Ukraine have been fuelling violence through the sale of more helicopters; this cannot remain without consequences, Commissioner. This conflict is the result of the failure by us and others to invest in inclusiveness at the point of independence, leaving ethnic divisions vulnerable to those vying for power internally. By mid-2017, five million in the country will be in need of food aid. We have to ensure long-term international commitment to food security and work with the region to re-open trade routes. I have a couple of issues, Commissioner. What steps have been taken to push for full implementation of the 2015 peace agreement? What are we doing to promote social cohesion so that South Sudan’s children are not a lost generation? And how will we be coordinating a development and recovery programme, with an effective emergency response over the years to come?

(Interruption by the President)

After the Rwandan genocide we said ‘never again’. Let us hold to this.

Neven Mimica,Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, this has been a very useful exchange and I thank the honourable Members for their contributions and interventions. The people of South Sudan have suffered immensely over the past six years. The lives of much of the population continue to hang in the balance, threatened by brutal violence, famine and destitution. The European Union will continue to deploy all the instruments available – political pressure, sanctions, humanitarian relief, development assistance, support for international justice – with a view to encouraging the parties to replace conflict with dialogue, in the hope of securing a better future for South Sudan.

Neven Mimica,Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable members, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon are two countries in the Central African region that are experiencing serious political challenges related to the electoral process. As you know, our relationship is based on the principles and essential elements of the Cotonou Agreement and especially respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. And, of course, we support the implementation of the African Charter on elections, democracy and governance.

The stability of Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo is of primary interest to the European Union, but genuine peace, stability and development do not come through enforced preservation of the status quo and repression of opposition voices.

On the Democratic Republic of Congo, the European Union considers that the political agreement signed on 31 December last year represents important progress, with remarkable mediation done by DRC Catholic bishops. The challenge now is to implement and to do it quickly. It is imperative that the transition period towards elections be as short as possible. In order to achieve this, the bishops should not be left alone and the European Union will actively seek the engagement of the region, as well as the United Nations, in pushing Congolese political actors to implement the agreement. A new government reflecting the inclusive support for the agreement must be in place as soon as possible.

The DRC parliament will have a loaded agenda in its March session with the legislative acts necessary to move ahead with elections and the institutionalisation of the Comité National de Suivi, the oversight body that will also watch over the independence of the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission will then produce an electoral calendar that will reflect the urgency for holding elections and utmost care for the costs of the operation in a country that is experiencing a severe fiscal crisis and is failing to provide essential services to its population.

The European Union is ready to support this process politically and operationally, providing expertise when required to both national and international actors involved. The resolution of the Security Council that will be renewing the mandate of MONUSCO in March 2017, will be an important step in establishing a global consensus around the political agreement. This is important, as the legitimacy of President Kabila no longer rests on the constitution alone, but on inclusive political support for the agreement.

The European Union imposed restrictive measures in December. The warning given in the EU Council conclusions of 23 May 2016 still stands. Individuals responsible for violence and those trying to obstruct a solution to the crisis in the DRC will be targeted. We shall exert vigilance on the human rights situation, on fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, and we are dedicating increased resources to that effect.

Let me now address Gabon. The electoral violence following the presidential elections of 27 August last year and climate of fear, repression and intimidation that followed and continues today, is an issue of great concern. Arbitrary arrests, long-term detentions, inhuman conditions and excessive restrictions of freedom of expression, assembly and manifestation are alarming. Grave human rights violations, including alleged torture, extra—judicial killings and disappearances, call for an independent investigation without any delay. We strongly encourage an independent inquiry in Gabon to conduct a quick fact-finding mission.

We also welcome the initiatives by the Gabonese Government, the opposition and civil society to request a preliminary inquiry into the post—electoral violence from the International Criminal Court. The European Union has also activated the human rights defenders mechanism to protect civil society activists in Gabon whose personal security was at risk.

We cannot disregard the conduct of the elections. The conclusions of the EU Election Observation Mission were clear. They do not allow us to turn the page and to carry on with ‘business as usual’. EU relations with Gabon have been reassessed and the Gabonese Government was invited to an intensified political dialogue with the European Union. The dialogue aims to accompany the government in their announced electoral and institutional reforms, based on the Election Observation Mission’s recommendations and to shed light on the human rights violations.

We expect the government to recognise its best interest to engage in this constructive diplomatic exercise in order to avoid further consequences. Some of them are mentioned in the draft resolution before this House, such as individual measures, a review of our development cooperation or consultation under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement.

In concluding, let me express my gratitude both for the debates and for the resolutions of the European Parliament, which reassure us in our firm diplomatic and development actions, and for your participation in the EU Electoral Mission. Let me thank in particular the Chief Observer, the honourable Member, Mariya Gabriel, for her dedication and courage.

Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, since our previous debate on the DRC last November, I am pleased that there has been some progress in reaching a settlement for fresh elections and the standing—down of President Kabila. The deal reached at the end of December was a breakthrough, and we must praise the work of the Conference of Catholic Bishops in Congo for mediating the talks.

There is, however, concern about the pace of progress towards elections. Recent reports of the escape of M23 rebel fighters from Uganda and their crossing into the DRC should also be a cause for alarm, with a risk of a return to fighting in the North Kivu province, which could potentially be exploited by Kabila as grounds for prolonging his DRC presidency.

Similarly, in Gabon we see huge violations of human rights and violence since the flawed presidential elections last August, so justice and reforms are absolutely essential in that country. Of course, the EU must maintain pressure on the Gabonese authorities to prevent a climate of impunity.

Pavel Telička, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, 2016 was in fact a dark year for the sub-Saharan part of Africa. While we saw some positive developments in the western part, such as elections and transitions of power, we have mentioned today some of the countries – and I could add more – that have gone through a very violent period.

What lies ahead of us are more elections in 2007. There will be presidential elections in Angola and people will go to the polls in Kenya, Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia, Sierra Leone, etc. All these elections represent a real challenge for the continent and for the international community, which means of course for the European Union as well. I must say that, if nothing substantial is done, we will be having the same debate in a few months from now.

So the issue is that there is a role to play – with an appropriate political role for the Africans themselves – for the African Union, the international community and the European Union. Commissioner, I appreciate that you have highlighted the repression, the sanctions, the monitoring and all the instruments that we have. You also highlighted one element which I would like to dwell on in a little more detail, which is that we do have human rights defenders, independent social media and vibrant communities in civil society. So our task is to provide them with the necessary support on time and in time. We must have this twofold ambition.

Neven Mimica,Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, this has been a very rich exchange and I am grateful to the honourable Members for their very valuable interventions. I believe it will be an important reassurance to the people of both Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo that this House is following developments with such attention and cares sincerely about their destiny.

From this debate, I conclude that we all share a common interest in engaging with the Gabonese Government in determining whether there is a genuine willingness to implement the Election Observation Mission’s recommendations on electoral reforms and on the investigation of human rights violations. If this is not the case, we will draw the consequences.

As regards the Democratic Republic of Congo, the European Union will remain vigilant and ready to use all instruments available to ensure that a transition period will end with democratic and transparent elections.

Finally, with the current volatile situation in both countries, let me remind you of the statements issued by the European Union, stressing that all parties must refrain from violence, from incitement or provocation, or from the use of excessive force. We will continue following both countries’ situation closely in every dimension, as I am sure you will do, too. I can assure you that we will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to assist in bringing a durable solution to the current crisis. We undertake to keep you fully informed of developments.

Věra Jourová,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, female genital mutilation (FGM) is one of the most serious grievous forms of violence against women. I am strongly committed to eliminating this practice. I stand for zero tolerance for it and I call on all of you to join me in this. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you today, ahead of the International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM on 6 February.

The estimated figures are really shocking, with half a million women and girls being victims of FGM in Europe, and 125 million worldwide. Thousands of girls are at risk of FGM.

I would like to update you today on what the Commission has done in this area since we last discussed this serious issue in 2015. We have been following the 2013 action plan, the Communication ‘Towards the elimination of FGM’, and its five defined priorities: improving data collection and knowledge, prevention, prosecution, protection and eliminating FGM worldwide. In the strategic engagement for gender equality we commit ourselves to continue with the implementation of the measures set out in the communication.

I am proud to announce that this week a complex web-based knowledge platform, which serves as an online EU-wide multilingual resource and education centre for professionals, has been launched. It provides easily—accessible and culturally—appropriate information and support to professionals from diverse backgrounds across the EU. The aim is to raise awareness of FGM, to effectively deliver victim support and to protect women and girls living with, or at risk of, FGM. We reach out to all relevant professionals, including nurses, doctors, midwives, lawyers, judges, prosecutors, police officers, asylum officers, teachers, social workers, child protection professionals and also reporters and journalists. This project has gone live, also due the commitment of Parliament to this cause. I count on your further support to ensure a wide dissemination of the information on this new tool.

In addition, together with the European Institute for Gender Equality, we have developed a methodology to estimate the risk of FGM in different Member States, and we have funded a prevalence study to get more understanding of the phenomenon. We are working on the revision of the EU guidelines on the promotion and protection of the rights of the child. Preventive and protective measures against FGM are foreseen to be part of the recommendations towards Member States, notably with regard to children in migration. We are enforcing a correct and timely implementation of the Victims’ Rights Directive, which is of particular importance for victims of gender-based violence, including FGM, as it ensures access to free-of-charge and confidential specialist support services, including trauma support and counselling.

In the proposed amendments to the Common European Asylum System we strengthen the safeguards for protection of persons with specific needs, including women applicants who have experienced gender-based harm. Access to medical care, legal support and appropriate trauma counselling and psychosocial care is to be ensured. The European Asylum Support Office has developed a practical support tool for the identification of persons with special needs and applies a training module on gender, gender identity and sexual orientation to officers.

Last, but not least, we are funding transnational projects that combat harmful practices such as FGM, both in the EU and beyond. In concrete terms, this means EUR 4.5 million in the Rights Equality and Citizenship Programme and EUR 11 million in the UNICEF Joint Programme on the abandonment of FGM.

Last year, I visited NGOs that help victims and support women who have undergone FGM and that focus on the prevention of girls from being cut. I have spoken to the women and men dedicated to ending this practice and listened to their concerns. One of the recurring issues was the prevailing lack of knowledge and understanding of professionals. This impedes girls and women in Europe from getting the best possible care and from having all their rights respected. If a doctor is surprised or horrified when an infibulated woman visits him or her, this can cause shame and certainly it would be a hurdle for visiting again and receiving appropriate care. If a police officer believes this is just a part of the culture, rather than a serious infringement of rights, coming forward can become so much harder. If a teacher has never heard of FGM, it will be impossible to pick up any signals and prevent a young girl from being cut. Hence, it is important to encourage all relevant professionals to act accordingly and provide care, protection and prevention. I believe the FGM platform we are launching these days, calling to unite to end FGM will be an important contribution to end this practice in Europe.

Finally, as you know, I have dedicated this year as a year of focused actions to combat violence against women. I will continue to fight harmful practices such as FGM as part of it, and count on your support.

Angelika Mlinar, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I think we can all agree here that there is no reason for young girls to suffer genital mutilation. There is no place for such a practice in any civilised society. This so—called tradition, like many others, is nothing but a violation of women’s rights which goes back many centuries, and we can no longer tolerate it happening in the 21st century. We should be committed every day, not just on the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation as such.

The EU has been advancing on this file. However, we should strengthen the instruments at our disposal. As regards supporting victims of FGM, the provisions of the EU Directive on Victims’ Rights apply to all victims of crime, including FGM. The signing of the Directive on Victims’ Rights meant that tremendous progress was made in strengthening victims’ rights. The European Parliament, as co—legislator, had as a clear objective to seriously recognise the needs of victims in criminal proceedings.

We now need to focus on the implementation of this important piece of EU legislation, which should have been transposed into national law by all EU Member States by November 2015. However, progress made on the transposition front is very disappointing. I would like to ask the Commissioner about the state of play of implementation. Another complementary tool in the fight against FGM was the Istanbul Convention as it was the first treaty to recognise that FGM exists in Europe and needs to be systematically addressed. I would therefore repeat my call on the Commission and on the Council to undertake whatever is needed to make the EU accession to the Istanbul Convention happen as soon as possible.

Malin Björk, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, the cutting of women’s genitals and clitorises is a very serious form of violence against women. As colleagues have said, approximately 130 to 140 million women and girls have been victims of FGM. FGM is older than Christianity or Islam. It has nothing to do with religion, but it has all to do with patriarchy. It is also symptomatic for me that the clitoris almost everywhere has been systematically neglected and erased. Many people don’t even know what it looks like, and the dictionaries in 2017 still get it wrong. This is what it looks like, a real-sized clitoris. This is a simple 3D print that I think every woman should be proud to be in possession of, because knowing your body is also a way to take back control, to take back power. This is being used by many FGM activists that fight against FGM, and it gives us the power to protect it.

Saying a firm ‘no’ to FGM for me also means that we have to have protective laws and we have to provide strong support to the grassroots organisations that work on this. But saying no to FGM also demands that we say no to all forms of patriarchal control of our bodies. Today we see the attacks on women’s bodies from the likes of Trump with his awful gag rule that wants to threaten women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights worldwide.

Colleagues, Commission, our message must be clear. These struggles are linked. We say no to FGM, support grassroots organisations. We say no to all forms of patriarchal control over our bodies, and we say yes to sexual freedom and choice for women and for proper sexuality education where we can learn about our rights, our women’s rights and our bodies, and about the clitoris.

Terry Reintke, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, defending women’s and girls’ rights has actually become even more urgent in the last week, most recently when Donald Trump signed an executive order to reinstate the Global Gag Rule. This rule will not only cut funding for family planning organisations that give consultations on safe abortion but will also cut funding for very important things like HIV prevention, medical care and helping victims of female genital mutilation (FGM).

Now is the time for the European Union to step up and say that it is going to counterbalance what is being cut by the American administration, not only financially but also organisationally, and is going to support giving consultation and all medical care to victims of female genital mutilation, because female genital mutilation is a deeply traumatising form of sexualised violence.

We need to step up our efforts to fight against all forms of violence against women. I must say that I am very surprised by our colleagues on the right, who are now claiming that we never speak about FGM because actually the ratification of the Istanbul Convention would be a very important step to do exactly that. So once again the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation should be a reminder to you Commissioner, and also to all Member States, to ratify the Istanbul Convention and take these very decisive steps not only against FGM, but against all forms of violence against women.

Diane James (NI). – Mr President, a case of female genital mutilation (FGM) in England is reported every 109 minutes. Just think of what that means in terms of incidence. The fact that there such a level of FGM is an absolute outrage, but practices based on cultural or quasi-religious beliefs are difficult to eradicate, and when family members are involved it is actually near impossible.

When authorities want to stop FGM being undertaken, but in many instances are prevented from doing so, then a resolution to the problem becomes that much more difficult. In the United Kingdom, I welcome and applaud the fact that schoolteachers, border officers and many public servants are now at the forefront of resources to stop FGM. This is not an EU matter: this is an issue for Member States, whose internal systems are best placed and can be directly resourced to thwart and stop this cruel and unimaginable horror – an affront to human decency.

The European Union call for zero tolerance for FGM is, as always, words. Nothing that this particular proposal identifies can be delivered because it all contradicts the EU stance on human rights, that is to say interference in travel freedoms, the right to exercise cultural practices, recognition of cultures and societies. But Member States can actually do something and that is what I want to see happen. If zero tolerance is achieved, it will be achieved by national governments.

Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, female genital mutilation is a crime and it should be treated as such. These barbaric practices, as my colleagues have said, still affect millions of girls around the world and in Europe, and more are at risk. We are talking about serious breaches of the rights of girls, some of whom are aged as young as two years old, causing physical and psychological damage.

Commissioner, I welcome your commitment and action. It is time for the Member States to do more to enforce the existing legislation, to ratify and enforce the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention on Violence against Women, and to accelerate EU accession to the Istanbul Convention. The Convention specifically criminalises female genital mutilation and provides specific measures for prevention and protection of victims, such as the training of judges and healthcare for victims.

To eradicate FGM we need to eradicate impunity and ensure that the perpetrators, and even the guilty parents, are prosecuted. Let us say it loud and clear: child abuse and gender-based violence can never be justified by any religion, any tradition or any culture.

The EU must do more in its external and humanitarian action. We have to support awareness-raising, education on child rights and the medical risks, and support the adoption of national laws banning this practice. We also have to work with activists in civil society at grassroots level to empower women and girls to speak up in their communities. It is about recovering their dignity and it is about respecting the integrity of girls’ bodies.

I will finish by saying this: let us continue to join forces in tirelessly repeating that we have to stand up for zero tolerance for female genital mutilation, for as long as it takes.

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, I am proud to stand here with colleagues to reaffirm that the EU will continue to fight to end violence against women and girls, including the appalling practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), and this is another issue where European cooperation makes a real difference. We know that every year 180 000 young women and girls are at risk of FGM, so tackling that phenomenon must be a women-led effort in intercultural dialogue, actively supported by men in the community. We must support grassroots efforts working directly with communities, with mothers, grandmothers and sisters, to change attitudes and break a harmful cycle.

We need to fund and empower the social services needed to support victims as well as community activists. The fight against FGM must be a vehicle for women’s empowerment and social inclusion, and I would like to extend my thanks to all the civil society organisations, and especially the End FGM network, who work on the ground and bring their advocacy and expertise to the European Parliament. Without you we could not do our work.

Věra Jourová,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, just like the last time when we had a heated discussion, today I feel very strong support from Parliament for all the strong and efficient measures we have taken against this barbarian habit – or to call it by its proper name, crime and torture. Thank you for this, because it is very encouraging.

I would like to comment on some of your proposals or comments. I spoke to many professionals, including the people working in the FGM Network, which was mentioned here by Ms Ward, and they always speak about very complex phenomena. Of course, I always say that we should do more law enforcement, and fight against this crime by means of criminal justice. But I always hear horrible stories about the custom of taking a girl to Africa for a summer holiday and then doing it to her there in Africa. When she comes back and the parents or the granny are on European soil could and should be prosecuted, the professionals tell me it would be further trauma for the girl. There are many stories of this kind, so we need to understand very well the complexity of this phenomenon and to use really efficient measures which will bring about a difference.

We speak about ‘zero tolerance’: there are several factors which are necessary. The first thing is political will. We must be absolutely clear that there is no excuse for it, based on some something like tradition or culture. This must be absolutely clear to everyone – all politicians, all influential people must know that this is a crime which must be punished. To my taste, we suffer from too much relativism in many other important things. Here, we should not do this.

The second thing – and I spoke about it before – is that professionals, from teachers to nurses, doctors, police and prosecutors, must understand what this is about and how to fight against it and engage with it. Thirdly, the law enforcement side, which I have also mentioned: there must be no excuse, but there must also be proper provision of care to the victims, because this must be balanced. And the fourth thing, which I find the most difficult but also the most important factor, is that we here with a kind of taboo. In violence against women, we fight against the fact that quite a large part of our societies think that it is normal. With FGM, we see that we have to fight against a taboo. I myself go to many conferences, I speak to many people, and I always mention FGM because it must be heard by hundreds of thousands of people in Europe, and I always receive the same reaction: ‘What? FGM in Europe in the 21st century?’ There is such a low awareness about this phenomenon that we have to do more, and I agree with some of the comments I heard here that it must not be at our seminars and conferences where the people who know about it are participating. We must not invade the open door – we have to address the communities where this barbaric habit is being carried out.

As you know we are now running a campaign against violence against women. To my disappointment, the Member States where we have identified high numbers – France, Portugal, UK, Sweden, Belgium, Cyprus, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, and I am naming without shaming but we must be aware of where this happening – have not asked for money to fight against this. But I don’t want to say that they are not doing anything, because they have their own policy, and it was said here clearly that first of all it is the task of the Member States to take the necessary action against this. But, coming back to the need to address the communities, we have opened the call for proposals for the NGOs, and I will encourage the NGOs from these countries which I mentioned to ask for the funding and to go more closely into the communities and to work on the ground. This is to be closed on 8 March. There is EUR 6 million. If you know about those NGOs who could help, please let them know. This is now a practical thing.

I know I have been speaking for too long, but I will finalise quickly. I have mentioned the Member States where we see high figures, but the statistics are still very inaccurate. We still do not have proper data collection, and this is also connected with the taboo factor. We have to be much better, and as I said we are working with the Agency on Gender Equality.

We are also pushing for the adoption of the Istanbul Convention. I will talk about it tomorrow with Maltese Minister Ms Helena Dalli, who is very much engaged with it. I hope we can achieve it at the March Council or in June. We have the signatures of 28 Member States, but the ratification of only 14, unfortunately.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your support. FGM is one of those matters where I will always feel we do not do enough, that we need to do more, and that if we do it together it will be more successful. Thank you very much for your future cooperation.

Cecilia Malmström,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, following Parliament’s consent on 14 December on the Protocol of Accession of Ecuador, I am very pleased to confirm that this agreement has been provisionally applied since 1 January this year. This is good news because a new trade agreement that creates new export opportunities for Ecuador – and of course opportunities for our goods and services – is also very good news for Ecuador. It is the first trade agreement with a developed country, an agreement that respects the level of development in Ecuador, and provides the opportunity for them to diversify the economy, reduce dependency on oil exports and raw materials and create new jobs for Ecuadorians.

I would like to thank the Committee on International Trade, and its rapporteur, Mr Scholz, for the work that it did to make this agreement possible. Since the agreement has been applied, the next step is, of course, to amend the banana stabilisation mechanism as well, and that is what we are debating today. This mechanism needed to be amended to incorporate Ecuador.

I very much welcome the constructive discussions and the agreement that we reached just before Christmas under the leadership of the rapporteur, Mrs de Sarnez, and also the co-rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs and the Chairman, Mr Lange. The banana stabilisation mechanism, to which imports of bananas from Ecuador will be subject, is a good and efficient mechanism to ensure stability in the EU market in case of a surge in imports of bananas from Ecuador. Mrs de Sarnez gave a very long explanation of its content, but let me just reiterate the main points.

With the amendments proposed by this Parliament, the amending regulation further improves the mechanism. There will be an early warning mechanism when imports reach 80% of their relevant yearly threshold. Transparency will be improved, and data on imports will be made regularly available and in a user—friendly manner.

Finally, the institutions also agreed that before the stabilisation mechanism expires at the end of 2019, the Commission will assess the situation of EU banana producers. Even after the expiry, we will continue to regularly analyse the state of the market and the EU producers and, where necessary, take appropriate action. In the light of this provisional application of the trade agreement since January, I hope that this amended regulation on the banana stabilisation mechanism can be adopted, hopefully voted on with a big majority tomorrow, and then applied as soon as possible.

Molly Scott Cato, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, bananas are symbolic fruit. They play such an important part in the politics of some countries that the phrase ‘banana republic’ is used to describe a corrupt regime dominated by powerful corporations. How can it be rational that a tropical fruit which travels so far and bruises so easily is eaten more than any other in the UK?

This modified regulation enshrines even more of the worst aspects of our irrational relationship with this humble fruit. Its focus is to ensure supermarkets’ ability to continue to use bananas as a loss leader, so that their price does not reflect their true environmental cost. It simultaneously increases the risk that Andean countries will lose the preferential tariffs which underpin the livelihoods of poor farmers in countries like Ecuador, where 200 000 families depend on banana production, and 56% of the banana plantations are smaller than 10 hectares.

The Greens’ priority for trade is to ensure a comfortable life for all, without wasting energy and resources. Our priority for agriculture is to protect the livelihoods of small producers against the power of global corporations. This regulation does nothing to constrain the power of such powerful retailers, who undermine the minimum wage in the Ecuadorian banana sector. This so-called safeguard regulation dismisses social and ecological aspects of production, and should leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the millions of European consumers who choose a banana before other locally grown fruit.

Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Mr President, by joining the EU-Columbia and Peru Trade Agreement, Ecuador will enjoy improved access for the main exports to the EU, such as fisheries, cut flowers, coffee, cocoa, fruits and nuts. Although banana imports will also benefit from our preferential rate, an additional stabilisation mechanism will protect European producers from potential import surges.

A better and more stringent system of information, based on reliable statistics on the trends in imports of bananas from three countries to the EU, will be in place. In particular, when volumes of these imports reach 80% of the threshold the Commission must inform the European Parliament and the Council, giving them an analysis of the impact of these imports. However, preferences can be suspended if the annual threshold has been reached. With all this in place, I can fully support this proposal.

Cecilia Malmström,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for the debate here today. The free-trade agreement with Ecuador is a possibility to support Ecuador, its economy, its development and its efforts in diversifying its economy and giving new possibilities to the people. It also contains a chapter on sustainable development.

However, I know that there have been concerns by banana producers in the European Union, and that is why the amended regulation that we are about to vote on tomorrow is a good legislative tool, and I really hope that it can calm some of the concerns that you have expressed here on behalf of them. It is a tool that will guarantee the stability of the banana market and the long—term sustainability of this sector, which is so important for many Europeans, especially in our outermost regions.

The new regulation will provide more information. It will regularly be available, and imports will be monitored closely. It would be transparent and user—friendly, so that everybody can follow what is going on and get a full picture. You can be assured that the Commission – and I, personally – will be fully dedicated to this procedure, and we will be informing and engaging with you and the whole Parliament on this regularly, and we are of course ready to discuss at any moment if you have questions on this. Thank you very much again, rapporteur Mrs Samez, for the work you have done. I would also like to thank the rest of Parliament, and I am looking forward to the vote tomorrow.

Linnéa Engström, rapporteur. – Mr President, first I would like to thank everyone for the work they have done on this important report and the good cooperation and interesting discussions we have had on this topic, the sustainable management of the EU external fishing fleet.

We are about to raise standards in the management of the EU external fishing fleet. For many years the EU had a very bad reputation when fishing outside EU waters, but for the last ten years things have considerably improved with the control regulation, the IUU regulation and the reformed CFP in place. The report that we are going to vote on tomorrow is a regulation that is part of the EU control system on fisheries. It is actually the most fundamental one because it decides who shall have the right to fish outside EU waters.

We can be proud of ourselves for we have voted for a very ambitious Parliament position in the committee vote. On several points we have strengthened the Commission proposal, which I have to say was a very good proposal to start with. For instance, we have added that EU vessels can only get direct authorisations if there is a surplus of fish available that the coastal state cannot catch. We have added that fishing on the high seas must be based on a scientific evaluation, showing the sustainability of that fishing activity. We introduced the requirement that vessels returning to the EU fleet register must provide their complete flag history during their period off the register. But, above all, we agreed that the new public register on authorisations must also include the name of the owner of the company, as well as the beneficial owner. This would then mean that, for the first time, we will see who benefits from global fishing through a public register.

Tomorrow we will vote in plenary, and some things are still to be settled. It is an important principle that only EU vessels with a clean record of compliance should be able to fish outside EU waters. This is already a provision in the current regulation that we need to keep. Otherwise we undermine our own credibility in our work to curb the IUU fishing of other fishing nations. So it is crucial to reinstate Article 5.1(d) that fell in a tight vote in the Committee. I therefore urge you, colleagues, to vote against Amendment 30 and to support Amendment 78.

Another fundamental principle is the exclusivity clause in the sustainable fisheries partnership agreements. This is stipulated in Article 31 of the basic regulation. I agree that there could be situations when the Commission should try to reactivate so—called dormant agreements. This idea was adopted in Amendment 18 in the Committee vote. But under no circumstances should fishing vessels be allowed to engage in direct authorisations, just like that, if there has not been any protocol in force for three years. This is exactly what Amendment 48 suggests. It suggests that fishing could start again without any prior assessment of the situation, yet there can be many reasons why there is no protocol in force – for example that the fish stocks situation does not allow for more fishing or the coastal state wants to keep the resource to itself for political reasons. That is why the Commission first needs to assess the situation and check coherence with other EU policies, such as developing and foreign policies. The Commission needs to ensure a level playing field. So please join me and delete Amendment 48, which is in fact not in line with the basic regulation.

Karmenu Vella,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, my sincere thanks go to the rapporteur, Ms Engström, so thank you, Linnéa, for the work on this report, along with the other shadows and their teams, who have worked hard to find a good compromise in relation to this Commission proposal.

The proposal on the sustainable management of the external fleets is of prime importance to reinforce the role of the European Union as a key global actor in fisheries and in ocean governance. With the new rules, the Commission aims to create a benchmark at international level regarding the management and the control of external fleets. I am pleased to see that the overwhelming majority of the amendments tabled follow this objective overall, and even reinforce the key elements of our proposal. The Commission would therefore be favourable to these amendments as long as they do not lead to disproportionate administrative burdens for our Member States and for our operators. The efforts deployed so far to simplify the text, reduce administrative burdens and improve the consistency and structure of the proposal could be of inspiration during the upcoming trilogues.

In relation to the database I am confident we will be able to increase openness and transparency, while striking a good balance with respect for sensitive, personal and commercial data. In order to maintain the reputation of the EU’s external fleet, we need to ensure that only good conduct vessels and operators complying with the rules are allowed to fish outside EU waters. Therefore, a clean record from sanctions for serious infringements in the last 12 months should be one of the conditions for a fishing authorisation.

Finally, as you know, the European Union is responsible for the activities of its vessels operating outside EU waters, and that is why it is particularly important to allow the Commission to withdraw the fishing authorisation of a vessel when the flag Member State does not take action to stop that vessel from causing damage. The Union has now become a strong global actor in shaping international oceans governance, and this has to be reflected also in our legislation and in our actions. I therefore trust that together we will manage to improve fisheries governance through better control and monitoring of our extended fleet. Let me thank you once again for this report and for the fruitful upcoming discussion. We look forward to further working with Parliament in a good spirit of cooperation.

Mike Hookem, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, tonight we debate sustainability, and I see by the numbers tonight the importance this European Parliament puts on the jobs of UK fishermen. The common fisheries policy does not know the meaning of the word ‘sustainability’. In UK waters, the common fisheries policy allows non-British fishing ships to decimate the number of fish, devastate the breeding stock of whole species and destroy the livelihoods and prosperity of whole ports such as Grimsby and Hull. The report also talks of external waters and fleets. It is straightforward: the UK must use Brexit to regain control of our waters when the EU becomes an external fleet. They must take second place – play second fiddle to the needs of our ports and our boats. For too long, our waters have been stripped by others. It must stop, and I will do all I can to make it stop. So it must be goodbye to external fleets, goodbye to the CFP on our patch, and goodbye to unworkable rules. Then it can be: hello, real sustainability.

Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Mr President, while seeking the sustainable exploitation of the seas, we should not forget about increasing the effectiveness of the current system. We also need to remember to promote a level playing field for Union operators, contrary to the third country operators. Most importantly, we have to create this level playing field. I am talking about the effective closure of the EU market for products coming from third country vessels that do not meet the requirements of this legislation. The EU should create a level playing field so that EU fishing vessels can compete with vessels from third countries.

Finally, I would like to mention the important Article 5.1(d). I fully agree with the fact that this point implies a double sanction for this sector and could seriously hurt the fishing activities of the long—distance fleet. We should not forget that the EU external fishing fleet is already subject to sanctions for serious infringements by the Control and IUU regulations. We have to remember this because it puts additional and unnecessary strain on our operators. In doing so, we will only hurt the sector and will also hurt the environment because we are the most important and most responsible operators on the seas all over the world.

Karmenu Vella,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank everyone once again for this fruitful discussion.

This week, I had the pleasure of discussing with many of you the importance of ocean governance at the Seas, Rivers, Islands and Coastal Areas Intergroup. Your vote on this proposal will be a very important step towards improving ocean governance overall. It will contribute to the sustainable exploitation of global fisheries resources. The European Union must be seen to act responsibly outside its own waters if we expect others also to fish sustainably. We are accountable for the actions of our own fleets. We need to provide these vessels with clear, simple and coherent rules in order to ensure that fishing authorisations are granted on objective and proportionate eligibility criteria, and that vessel activities are constantly monitored and transparent. The Commission proposal, which you will soon discuss in trialogues, presents an approach that will achieve these objectives. I welcome Ms Engström’s report, which reinforces our policy objectives and brings in some constructive suggestions as well.

Turning to some of the specific points raised by Members this evening, some of you do not agree that past serious infringements should be taken into account in granting authorisations – I am referring to Amendment 30. I think that this measure is proportionate and justified. We should ensure that only good conduct vessels are allowed to fish outside EU waters, and the absence of serious – let stress and underline the word ‘serious’ – infringements in the last 12 months is a good indication of good conduct. It is also a cost—effective way to control who can fish outside our waters and who cannot.

There were also some comments on the clawback clause. The European Union is responsible before third countries and international organisations for the activities of its vessels operating outside EU waters. Not having a legal basis to stop fishing vessels from causing harm without the impunity of the flagged Member State would put the European Union in a situation of not being able to comply with its international obligation of due diligence, as pointed out by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). The clawback clause allows the Commission to withdraw a fishing authorisation in cases where Member States do not stop fishing vessels flying their flag in the cases provided by the law and where those vessels continue fishing, causing harm.

There was also some mention of the dormant agreements and, although we sympathise, we cannot accept them for legal reasons. We understand that this is an important issue for a number of Members, and our proposal addresses direct authorisations with the objective of ensuring sustainability. This may eventually lead to our reviewing dormant agreements in the context of the negotiation of sustainable fishing partnership agreements.

Some comments were also made about the minimum length of vessel fleets. I have to say that it is very difficult to quantify the effect of the amendment, because we do not have information on high seas fisheries conducted by the EU vessels. However, to give you an idea, in 2015 there were around 70 000 EU vessels licensed to fish in our FMOs, with the bulk coming from the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). In the Mediterranean, most of the vessels are small—scale and normally fish on the high seas, although not adding a minimum length may bring problems of monitoring and control as well, because not all vessels are obliged to carry VMS, AIS and IMO numbers.

Some of you also expressed concern about data protection. As I have already said, we believe that the balance between information requirements and privacy in the proposal is the right one, but I am happy to look at proposals that would improve transparency within the limit of our data protection rules. I am sure that this will be an issue for intense discussion in the trialogues.

I look forward to further working with Parliament in a good spirit of cooperation as we take this file forward.

Linnéa Engström, rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank everyone here and Commissioner Vella for their contributions. I have some last points, and the first is that I really want to support the idea that we keep in the report the second part of Amendment 32, which gives the Commission the possibility to act if a Member State fails to. I think this is crucial as a provision to guarantee the level playing field among fleets. I hope that this will be confirmed in tomorrow’s vote. I urge you to vote in favour of Amendment 32 – all parts.

The second point is that some colleagues claim that prohibiting vessels that have committed a serious infringement from fishing abroad would be a double penalty, and this is definitely not the case, as Commissioner Vella also stressed. It is an eligibility criterion designed to ensure that only vessels with a clean record are allowed to fish outside EU waters.

My last point: let me come back to Amendment 48. If vessels are allowed after three years of a dormant agreement to set up their own terms with a third country, they will be able to ignore those very provisions in the CFP that have served to improve EU standards. They could negotiate weaker terms despite the existence of a bilateral agreement, and that is not maintaining the high standards of the EU. It is serving to undermine them. So I urge you all to keep up the good standards of EU external fishing and to refer to, and vote against, Amendment 48. Once more, my thanks to all of you for the very good cooperation that we have had, and I am looking forward to working with you once more.

Tibor Navracsics,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, this year we are celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of Erasmus, one of the EU’s biggest success stories. This is the perfect opportunity for us to take stock of how we have moved from Erasmus to Erasmus+ and to celebrate what we have achieved so far. It is also a greater opportunity to debate where we want to take the programme in the future.

I therefore welcome the fact that the European Parliament has appointed a standing rapporteur for the Erasmus+ Programme who keeps a critical eye on its implementation. I want to thank Mr Sver and his shadow rapporteurs for their positive and constructive report, and their suggestions, especially with a view to the upcoming mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+. I welcome this report, and I am very happy to comment on some of the points it raises.

I am fully aware that Erasmus+ had some teething problems in its first year. Merging various former programmes into one and trying to apply uniform rules to the whole programme was not an easy task, but we have overcome these initial difficulties I am therefore pleased that your report recognises the efforts the Commission has put and continues to put into improving the implementation of the programme. This would not have been possible without your regular feedback and without us closely cooperating with our stakeholders and national agencies who implement the programme at national level.

Your report rightly identifies the cross-sectorial approach as a main feature of Erasmus+. As you point out, we have seen many positive developments over the course of only a couple of years. What we do in education, training, youth and sport is much more visible. We have built bridges between these fears which has led to an exchange of ideas, and has also translated into a significant increase in the funding available to the benefit of all beneficiaries. Moreover, funding rules have been streamlined and simplified funding mechanisms such as lump sums have been widely introduced. Communication to beneficiaries has been streamlined and, finally, this leaner management has made the programme more flexible, so that it can respond to changing political priorities.

I am very proud that Erasmus+ is a much more open and inclusive programme than its predecessors. First of all, Erasmus+ is much more than student mobility. It is about learners in vocational education and training, and youth workers. It is about providing practical support to teachers and helping organisations and educational institutions to forge international partnerships. It is about kick—starting innovation across the fields of education, training and youth. It is about supporting our sports organisations, and much more. Erasmus+ also covers important horizontal dimensions. To name just one: language learning. Language learning is definitely a must in today’s world. This is why Erasmus+ provides flexible online linguistic support in many languages. The programme also offers additional funding to disadvantaged learners, including people who come from difficult socio-economic backgrounds, or who have special needs, because these people are the ones who need the extra boost to participate in the programme.

I am happy to see that as a result of our efforts, one out of ten mobility participants come from disadvantaged backgrounds or have fewer opportunities. I believe that inclusion and accessibility go hand in hand. I am therefore glad to read in your report that you appreciate our attempts to simplify the application procedures through a range of digital solutions. We have established a strong relationship with our national agencies and beneficiaries. My services have put in place a long-term IT action plan to adapt our IT tools to the needs of participants and to make the tools as user—friendly as possible. We have already achieved high satisfaction rates here, but we will keep up the work. Thanks to the use of online application forms and the online programme guide, we are now moving to the next level of digitalisation. This is in line with the call included in your report.

Let me stress one more thing: if we are to ensure the future success of the programme and the positive impact it has on the lives of so many young people across Europe, we need adequate funding. Already now, the programme is heavily over-subscribed, and as you rightly say in your report, it creates frustration when high—quality projects have to be turned down for the simple reason of lack of funds. Given the back—loading of the programme, which means that most of the funds earmarked for Erasmus+ will be spent between now and 2020 when the current programme ends, we need an increase of funds for the next programming period, just to maintain current funding levels. The thirtieth anniversary of Erasmus+ this year provides us with an excellent opportunity to make the case for such an increase. As you know, just last week we organised a launch event at the Parliamentarium for a year full of anniversary events all across Europe. I would like to invite you all to get involved in these events, as we have so much to learn from listening to the Erasmus generation and their ideas. We need to involve them in building a stronger, better Europe.

Honourable Members, your report is a manifestation of our shared dedication to the programme and of our constructive relationship. I want to thank you for the time and effort you have devoted to drafting it. Let me assure you that your conclusions and recommendations will be carefully taken into account in the ongoing mid-term evaluation of the programme.

Together we can make sure that Erasmus+ will continue to be one of Europe’s greatest success stories.

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, for me the Erasmus programme is the biggest success story of the EU. In 2014 alone, the programme provided the UK with more than EUR 79 million in grants and allowed 36 734 British people to study, train or volunteer abroad. These grants helped – and continue to help – young people enhance their skills and employability and intercultural awareness. They also encourage young people to participate in democratic life. Compared to previous generations of programmes, the new Erasmus+ provides stronger support for learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, which I welcome. By funding cooperation projects, Erasmus+ also fosters modernisation and EU-wide collaboration, which in turn stimulate innovation, creativity and improved job prospects.

Leaving the EU will have a major impact on higher education in the UK, with an important loss of income due to a fall in the numbers of EU nationals studying in the UK. Losing access to EU funding, such as Horizon 2020 grants, which accounts for a quarter of all public investment in UK research could further tarnish the attractiveness of the UK as a place to study for international students, including those from non-EU countries. Furthermore, by ending freedom of movement, a hard Brexit would deprive future generations of young Britons of the chance to broaden their minds, learn a foreign language, enjoy a new culture and gain a valuable European experience.

Tibor Navracsics,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank everyone for their participation and remarks in the debate. Both the critical and the supportive remarks are very useful to us in building up the project for the years to come and the upcoming multiannual financial framework.

Indeed, the Erasmus programme, which started its career 30 years ago as a student mobility programme, transformed into a very complex programme with higher education aspects. It is no longer only about student mobility, but strategic alliances among higher education institutions, the exchange of ideas and best practices, and a strong and institutionalised cooperation among higher education institutions. It has a chapter on volunteering which can be very useful for young Europeans to gain experience and skills in volunteering which can be used on the labour market. We have some funding programmes for sports, especially for grassroots sports, and we have projects in youth policy as well. This means that Erasmus+ is today much more than a student mobility programme. It is a complex programme for the future because it not only helps young people to find their own place in today’s and tomorrow’s societies, but it also helps them to develop a complementary European identity which is not antagonistic to local, regional or national identities, but complements them. It adds to their personality and thereby hopefully helps European integration in this very critical period.

There is, of course, a lot of room for improvement. That is why I thanked you for all the remarks which raised the issue of funding. The structure of the Erasmus+ budget is an incremental one, which means that from 2017 until 2020, there is a 10% increase in the budget, which means wider opportunities in the future. I thank you for all the critical remarks on the administrative burden. We are working on simplifying procedures and IT solutions. I understood Mr Jakovčić’s remarks on possible synergies. Together with local authorities or regional authorities, I think that could be a good opportunity for broadening the social and geographical appeal of Erasmus+ in the next period of the lifespan of that programme.

All in all, Erasmus+ is a success story. We have to protect all the achievements and to improve the structure and the outcomes of Erasmus+. That is why we offer some additional policy instruments aimed at helping young people to use the best opportunities in Erasmus+, for instance the student loan or the apprenticeship and traineeship programmes in Erasmus+. In the future we would like to broaden its social appeal and we would like to make it more available for those people who come from social circumstances and a social environment which are not so fortunate.

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome the call for an integrated policy in sport adopted by this report, which addresses a broad range of issues, such as the challenges linked to racism and homophobia, the social aspects of sport and the need to ensure inclusive access, including for people with disabilities, the contribution of sport to wellbeing and health – notably mental health, and the need to strongly combat unethical practices such as match fixing, corruption and doping. Integrity is a vital component of sport. We must restore trust in sporting institutions and re-establish the values of solidarity, peace and social inclusion that sport can engender. The EU should pay particular attention to the issue of human rights in sport. The circumstances surrounding the preparation of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar are deeply regrettable. It is estimated that 4000 people might die before the first ball is even kicked. The EU must condemn the abuses that have been taking place. Sport must remain a vehicle for promoting human rights, not a justification for breaching them.

Finally, I’d like to address the issue of gender equality in sport and the fair representation of women in governing bodies: having more women in sport decision—making would have a positive outcome, not only on the transparency and accountability of sports organisations and access to sports activities for women, but might also counter the poor media coverage given to women’s sport and the socially discriminating and sexually stereotyped reporting found in the media.